Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the “centrality” of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document. …

The latest terrorism assessment paints a portrait of a global war in which Iraq is less the central front of actual combat than a unifying battle cry for disparate extremist groups and even individuals. “It is just those kinetic actions that lead to the radicalization of others,” a senior counterterrorism official said earlier this summer. “Surgical strikes? Nothing is surgical about military operations. They tend to have impacts, affects.”

That description contrasts with Bush’s emphasis this month on offensive military action in Iraq and elsewhere as the United States’ principal road to victory in the global war.

“Many Americans . . . ask the same question five years after 9/11,” he said in a speech in Atlanta earlier this month. “The answer is yes. America is safer. We are safer because we have taken action to protect the homeland. We are safer because we are on the offensive against our enemies overseas. We’re safer because of the skill and sacrifice of the brave Americans who defend our people.”

But “a really big hole” in the U.S. strategy, a second counterterrorism official said, “is that we focus on the terrorists and very little on how they are created. If you looked at all the resources of the U.S. government, we spent 85, 90 percent on current terrorists, not on how people are radicalized.”

Remember a few months ago, when gas prices passed $3 per gallon? People were angry and weren’t going to stand for it. Somebody should do something, they muttered at the pumps. Congressional hearings were held. Our commander-in-chief-executive, the failed oil tycoon, talked about hydrogen cars again.

Leave aside that it was ridiculous to be upset at such relatively cheap gas. Ignore that we haven’t had shortages like we had 30 years ago, during the oil embargo that taught us nothing except that we’ll pay anything for a fix (what an ironic use of that word).

Now, gas prices are in free-fall less than 2 months before a crucial election. Simple market forces at work? Or could it be:

(1) Corporations know that Republicans serve them better than Democrats;

(2) Foreign oil producers know that Republicans serve them better than Democrats.

Wouldn’t want the rabble roused. Go back to sleep. mjh

Major Problems At Polls Feared By Dan Balz and Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post Staff Writers

In the Nov. 7 election, more than 80 percent of voters will use electronic voting machines, and a third of all precincts this year are using the technology for the first time. The changes are part of a national wave, prompted by the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 and numerous revisions of state laws, that led to the replacement of outdated voting machines with computer-based electronic machines, along with centralized databases of registered voters and other steps to refine the administration of elections.

But in Maryland last Tuesday, a combination of human blunders and technological glitches caused long lines and delays in vote-counting. The problems, which followed ones earlier this year in Ohio, Illinois and several other states, have contributed to doubts among some experts about whether the new systems are reliable and whether election officials are adequately prepared to use them.

In a polarized political climate, in which elections are routinely marked by litigation and allegations of incompetent administration or outright tampering, some worry that voting problems could cast a Florida-style shadow over this fall’s midterm elections. [mjh: Especially if Republicans defy all odds and polls and make gains in control of the House and Senate.] …

What is clear is that a national effort to improve election procedures six years ago — after the presidential election ended with ambiguous ballots and allegations of miscounted votes and partisan favoritism in Florida — has failed to restore broad public confidence that the system is fair. …

Twenty-seven states require electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail available for auditing during a recount, but an analysis of Cuyahoga County’s paper trail by the nonpartisan Election Science Institute showed that a tenth of the receipts were uncountable.

In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal
Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats
By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza, Washington Post Staff Writers

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to “define” opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. …

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy — combined with the party’s significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation — proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, “It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit.” [mjh: noble Republican rhetoric.]

Dana Milbank – A Reprise of the Grand Old Party Line By Dana Milbank

“I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting terrorists than in protecting the American people,” House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.

One of his listeners, offering Boehner the chance to rescind that charge, asked if he really meant to accuse Democrats of treason. “I said I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists,” he replied, repeating more than clarifying. “They certainly don’t want to take the terrorists on in the field.”

The majority leader’s charge of treachery was no accident. Two months before Election Day, Republicans have revived the technique used with great success in 2002 and 2004: suggesting that the loyal opposition is, well, not so loyal.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) seemed to have the same talking points yesterday. In a fight for his political life, Santorum worked himself into a rage on the Senate floor, hollering: “If you listen to the Democratic leader, our lesson is: . . . Let’s put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country. That’s the message.” …

The aid-and-comfort line may not work as well this time, if only because polls show broad disenchantment with Bush and congressional leadership. And, unlike in 2002, Republicans have unified control of the government and find their security agenda being hamstrung by GOP holdouts as well as Democrats. But don’t discount the influence of Treason Season: A Zogby poll released yesterday showed Santorum closing the gap with Democratic challenger Bob Casey.

As is often the case, Vice President Cheney launched the current round of sedition suspicions. The idea “that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq,” he told NBC’s Tim Russert on Sunday, “validates the strategy of the terrorists.” …

Santorum said Democrats “can’t face the reality that we have a dangerous enemy out there, an enemy that wants to destroy everything we hold dear.”

Boehner, giving reporters an off-camera briefing in his office, was decidedly calmer. In shirtsleeves and sipping a Diet Coke, he told the group coolly: “I have no fears about losing our majority. None.“
– – –

MTP Transcript for Sept. 10 – Meet the Press, online at MSNBC

Cheney: So you look at situation today in Afghanistan or even in Iraq, and you’ve got people who have doubts. They want to know whether or not if they stick their heads up, the United States, in fact, is going to be there to complete the mission. And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists. …

MR. RUSSERT: But this stuff here is real important. This article says that in 2002, the U.S. pulled its Special Operation forces out of Afghanistan and, and really did lower down the volume in seeking—in going after Osama, which is at the exact time that President Bush said, “I don’t spend much time on him,” talking about bin Laden.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: He’s not the only source of the problem, obviously, Tim. If you killed him tomorrow, you’d still have a problem with al-Qaeda, with Zawahiri and the others. But bin Laden has been a top priority for us from the very beginning, he continues to be a top priority today. That hasn’t changed.

At one time, I thought that every year 9-11 should be commemorated by grounding all air traffic. Those days after 9-11-01 were made even more surreal by the absolute quiet. (Why do we put up with so much noise everyday?)

My feelings have changed since then. I would still support a freeze on air travel for the tenth anniversary, but in between now and then, I think we need to move on — and most of us are. 9-11 was a monstrous act by a tiny handful of sick madmen who represent a tiny tribe of medievalists. We have let that tiny band of fanatics change every day since 9-11. Worse, we’ve increased their numbers a thousandfold through our actions since that day. We’ve spent a trillion dollars in 5 years to wage war on a few thousand loonies with donkey carts and box cutters. Oh, sure, they also have video cameras and websites. Behind it they have an idea, however mad, and you can’t kill an idea, though an idea can kill you.

Here at home, you’re more likely to be physically attacked for appeasement (hey, you, where’s your flag lapel pin?! Communist! Feminazi! Islamo-fascist!) than to be arrested by the piety police. We’re coerced to face Washington, not Mecca, 5 times a day in obeisance. We never speak of the irony of our band of religious fanatics dragging us into war with their band of religious fanatics. (God Bless America!) At least our fanatics haven’t beheaded anybody yet (just killed a few doctors, homosexuals and foreigners). We do have the higher ground morally.

Although we did the right thing in Afghanistan 5 years ago, we’re now loosing ground there. The Soviets took a decade to give up fighting the rebels we armed. The Taliban is still alive and kicking, shooting us with our own guns (perhaps we should fund the war through taxes on gun manufacturers). The official Afghan government is looking into restoring a morality police.

As for bin Laden, a few years ago Duhbya said he never thinks about bin Laden (only Hussein). That is until 2 months before an election, when he mentioned bin Laden 17 times in one speech. The War on Terror, the War Without End, is all that matters and justifies that terrible war of choice in Iraq, where we deposed an enemy of bin Laden’s and Iran’s. All part of the birthing of democracy or the End of Days. Those democracies seem likely to elect ayatollahs and willingly adopt sharia even as we elect our own conservatives.

Had enough? Are we going to continue to give power to the incompetent, corrupt and fearful? The same people who promise trillions of dollars and a shredded Constitution will destroy the enemy in another generation or so? mjh

mjh’s blog — ‘I have no idea, and I really don’t care.’

Promise: In 2001, Bush trumpeted that finding Osama bin Laden was his administration’s “number one priority. We will not rest until we’ve found him.”

How Bush backed it up: In 2002, when asked about the whereabouts of Osama, he replied, “I don’t know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don’t care. It’s not that important.”

mjh’s blog — Third Debate Comments
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.

Iraq’s Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda’s overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein “only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden.”

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran’s, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued. …

As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the report.

“The president is still distorting. He’s still making statements which are false,” said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence committee member. …

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical and biological weapons] knowledge or assistance.” A year later, Bush said: “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” …

“It is such a blatant misleading of the United States, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it’s justified to go to war with Iraq,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee’s vice chairman. “That kind of public manipulation I don’t know has any precedent in American history.”