Good News!

Cancel7

Banned
Bush is winning the war on terror!

I guess we know what Chertoff's "gut feeling" of yesterday was. More of a "well, I can't say that Bush has f'd up the whole thing, so I'll say it's a gut feeling."

It's a good thing we invaded Iraq, that's really helped.

Terror Watch: The Return of Al Qaeda
A new National Intelligence Estimate raises concerns that the terrorist group is growing stronger.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:10 p.m. ET July 11, 2007
July 11, 2007 - A new National Intelligence Estimate presents a sobering analysis of terrorism threats to the United States, concluding that Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure along the Pakistani border and may now be a stronger and more resilient organization today than it appeared a year ago, according to three U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the draft document.

The officials, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters, said the still-classified document reflects growing jitters among U.S. counterterrorism officials, even while those officials stressed there is “no credible, specific” intelligence on any imminent threat to the homeland. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff underscored the concerns this week when he told the Chicago Tribune that he had a “gut feeling” that the country was entering a new period of increased risk this summer.

In fact, the activities of Al Qaeda’s leadership along the Afghan-Pakistani border are only one component of an overall threat environment that is worrying officials both in the United States and Europe. The stepped-up movement of suspected Islamic militants between Iraq and Europe has proven so troubling that the German government recently set up a special interagency team to track the flow of suspected jihadi recruits to and from that worn-torn country, two German sources told NEWSWEEK.

Over the past few months, U.S. officials said, the U.S. Embassy in Berlin has issued a number of warnings that Islamic militants associated with Al Qaeda may be plotting an attack on U.S. military facilities and personnel in Germany. The suspected plots are believed to be linked to an obscure terrorist network known as the Islamic Jihad Union. The group originated in Uzbekistan, but its German network has recently attracted recruits of other nationalities. Investigators also suspect it may have established contact with Al Qaeda’s high command.

A wealth of new evidence from recent overseas developments, including the investigation into the foiled bombing attacks in the United Kingdom, has prompted the FBI to mobilize teams of agents to track down leads and potential witnesses in the United States, a law-enforcement official confirmed today. The official said that recent assignments, first reported on the ABC News online column The Blotter, were part of a "stepped up" effort over the next few weeks in light of the disturbing current threat picture.


Assessing the precise nature of terror threats has proven a notoriously unreliable exercise for the U.S. intelligence community. In the first few years after the September 11 attacks, for example, nervous U.S. officials repeatedly announced warnings of increased risk—in some cases issuing Orange alerts, the second highest level—sometimes based on what turned out to be faulty or exaggerated intelligence reports. U.S. officials are fearful of again being perceived as “crying wolf” or scaring the public—one reason they have for the time being decided not to raise the alert level this summer.

The NIE reflects the consensus judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies and is prepared by the National Intelligence Council. A version of the new report, due to be released later this summer, is especially striking because it contrasts in some respects with previous analyses by the U.S. intelligence community. An NIE on “Trends in Global Terrorism”—portions of which were declassified last September—concluded that U.S. counterterrorism efforts “have seriously damaged the leadership of Al Qaeda and disrupted its operations.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
 
We tried so hard to tell them this would be the outcome.

I so wish people would start listening to the people who got it right all along.

I spent a couple of years having people look at me like I was insane because of this fucking war and now none of those people acknowledge the fact that I was right.

So what do some continue to do?

Call all of us who knew how it would turn out lefty kooks still.

There are just some in this country who would back a dead dog if Bush told them to.
 
There are just some in this country who would back a dead dog if Bush told them to.
//

Yep it is sad to say, but true. Blind followers of a fool....
And that makes who the biggest fool the follower or the leader ?

Bush blew the sympathy of the world off after 911 and wasted our best shot to really give a blow to terrorism and he just gave terrorism a giant boost.....

How would a waterboard bush party sound ?
 
There are just some in this country who would back a dead dog if Bush told them to.
//

Yep it is sad to say, but true. Blind followers of a fool....
And that makes who the biggest fool the follower or the leader ?

What would consider someone who reflexivly (sp) opposes everything a person does?
 
I don't know, but I am not sure I understood what you posted.

Maybe a wife ?
Or a Christian ?

Sorry I should have been more clear. Speaking about politics.

You made a comment about people who only positively support what a politician says.

I was asking what do you think of people who only oppose what a politician says? Sort of the opposite of your comment.
 
Sorry I should have been more clear. Speaking about politics.

You made a comment about people who only positively support what a politician says.

I was asking what do you think of people who only oppose what a politician says? Sort of the opposite of your comment.

That depends upon who the politician is-----Bush???Then a smart cookie.
 
What would consider someone who reflexivly (sp) opposes everything a person does?


We still call them Republicans. For example, see: circa 1992 to 2000 Bill Clinton.

Liberals on the other hand, think about everything first. I'm surprised you don't know this Cawacko!
 
Sorry I should have been more clear. Speaking about politics.

You made a comment about people who only positively support what a politician says.

I was asking what do you think of people who only oppose what a politician says? Sort of the opposite of your comment.

Umm, there is another factor in the formula.
What politicians say are seldom what they do.
I personally think virtually all politicians now-a-days are scum.

they have lost their way and are now serving everyone but the people that hired them.
 
Back
Top