US Security now based on Chertoff's GUT: "My gut tells me...when we find a credible threat"

[Guest Roger]

In 'gut' check, Bush says terror threat here is real

Mark Silva, Washington Bureau

July 13, 2007

 

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, deflecting a question about his homeland

security chief's "gut feeling" about an imminent terrorist threat against

the U.S. this summer, said Thursday that his own "head" tells him Al Qaeda

remains "a serious threat to our homeland."

 

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Tribune editorial

board about his gut feeling during an interview Tuesday -- only to have the

White House say the next day that there is "no credible intelligence" of any

potential domestic threat.

 

At a news conference Thursday, the Tribune asked the president how

"comfortable" he is with Chertoff making that statement about gut instincts

in the absence of any credible intelligence, and asked Bush: "What does your

gut tell you?"

 

"My gut tells me ... what my head tells me as well ... that when we find a

credible threat, I'll share it with people to make sure that we protect the

homeland," Bush said. "My head also tells me that Al Qaeda is a serious

threat to our homeland and we've got to continue making sure we've got good

intelligence, good response mechanisms in place. ... We need to chase them

down and bring them to justice before they come home to hurt us again."

 

Calling the threat of Al Qaeda "a serious issue that is going to outlast my

presidency," Bush at the same time downplayed press reports of an

intelligence assessment that the organization responsible for the terrorist

attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has regained its previous strength.

 

"There is a perception in the coverage that Al Qaeda may be as strong today

as they were prior to September the 11th," Bush said. "That's just simply

not the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to

September the 11th, 2001, because of the actions we have taken, Al Qaeda is

weaker today than they would have been.

 

"They are still a threat," Bush said. "They are still dangerous. And that is

why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere

else we find them."

 

But Bush offered no specific comment on Chertoff's gut feeling.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gut13jul13,1,992401.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

[Guest Perry Neheum]

On Jul 18, 3:08 am, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In 'gut' check, Bush says terror threat here is real

> Mark Silva, Washington Bureau

> July 13, 2007

>

> WASHINGTON -- President Bush, deflecting a question about his homeland

> security chief's "gut feeling" about an imminent terrorist threat against

> the U.S. this summer, said Thursday that his own "head" tells him Al Qaeda

> remains "a serious threat to our homeland."

>

> Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Tribune editorial

> board about his gut feeling during an interview Tuesday -- only to have the

> White House say the next day that there is "no credible intelligence" of any

> potential domestic threat.

>

> At a news conference Thursday, the Tribune asked the president how

> "comfortable" he is with Chertoff making that statement about gut instincts

> in the absence of any credible intelligence, and asked Bush: "What does your

> gut tell you?"

>

> "My gut tells me ... what my head tells me as well ... that when we find a

> credible threat, I'll share it with people to make sure that we protect the

> homeland," Bush said. "My head also tells me that Al Qaeda is a serious

> threat to our homeland and we've got to continue making sure we've got good

> intelligence, good response mechanisms in place. ... We need to chase them

> down and bring them to justice before they come home to hurt us again."

>

> Calling the threat of Al Qaeda "a serious issue that is going to outlast my

> presidency," Bush at the same time downplayed press reports of an

> intelligence assessment that the organization responsible for the terrorist

> attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has regained its previous strength.

>

> "There is a perception in the coverage that Al Qaeda may be as strong today

> as they were prior to September the 11th," Bush said. "That's just simply

> not the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to

> September the 11th, 2001, because of the actions we have taken, Al Qaeda is

> weaker today than they would have been.

>

> "They are still a threat," Bush said. "They are still dangerous. And that is

> why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere

> else we find them."

>

> But Bush offered no specific comment on Chertoff's gut feeling.

>

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gut13jul13,1,99240...

 

-------- YEAH, TELL US ABOUT YOUR "GUT," MIKE ...

 

 

AS YOUR White House war criminal spreads anew FAUX fears about al-

Qaeda's revival, other sources are speculating that such blather is a

ploy aimed at convincing Americans that U.S. troops SHOULD and WILL

be

withdrawn from Iraq to support the "growing threat" of terrorism in

"the Homeland." Not that after more than four years of bloodshed and

criminality in Iraq most Americans need any convincing.

 

YES, as Bushie and his prime fall-go-to-guy, Gen. Petraeus, have

reached the private conclusion that the Iraq "surge" hasn't and will

not work, they are preparing for announced troop withdrawals that

will

be palatable to a oft-duped U.S. public. And NOTHING would be more

believable -- after a lengthy and daily campaign of al-Qaeda fear-

mongering to American citizens than word that THEIR protection now

trumps the "war" over in Iraq.

 

Never mind that the U.S. is reponsible for at least a million human

deaths in and around Iraq.

 

Troop withdrawals, upon which the Democrat-controlled Congress has

insisted must occur -- soonest -- is the hapless Bush's worst

political nightmare. The American public overwhelmingly deems the

failed war and the need to bring our troops home to be the most

urgent

issue facing the Congress and the country. It's reflected in the

"president's" in-the-basement approval ratings.

 

But Bush and his puppeteer Cheney and the rest of their craven outlaw

cabal know that the best way to "save" Bush's ass for posterio-

posterity, is to craft a way to "get our troops home," out of Iraq,

something millions of Americans want. What better "excuse" than to

whip citizens' fears into near-panic by insisting we need more of our

forces home, now, to fight terrorism before another 9/11 occurs on

our

soil.

 

Red-staters, always semi-blindly loyal to Bush and his lies, will of

course applaud the "administration's" lastest BIG-little lie as real

"leadership." But intelligent, informed, and insightful folks know

that, once again, Bush and friends are attempting an end-run around

their illegal war and their crimes against humanity!

 

What an exit strategy!

 

Will it sell?

 

Will it work?

 

Are you buying it?

 

-------------

 

"Intelligence Puts Rationale For War on Shakier Ground"

 

 

By Michael Abramowitz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, July 18, 2007; A05

 

 

The White House faced fresh political peril yesterday in the form of

a

new intelligence assessment that raised sharp questions about the

success of its counterterrorism strategy and judgment in making Iraq

the focus of that effort.

 

 

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to

deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting

the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing

threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

 

 

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the

release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that

al-

Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland

attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and

reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-

Qaeda

has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for

Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

 

 

These disclosures triggered a new round of criticism from Democrats

and others who say that the administration took its eye off the ball

by invading Iraq without first destroying Osama bin Laden's

organization in Afghanistan.

 

 

Confronted with a political brush fire, the president and his aides

retreated to familiar ground, highlighting the parts of the report

that they saw as supportive of their policies, particularly the need

to confront Islamic radicals on the ground in Iraq.

 

 

In talking with reporters in the Oval Office yesterday, Bush

concentrated on a single paragraph in the assessment that placed the

enemy in Iraq in a larger context of international terrorism. The

estimate said bin Laden's organization will "probably seek to

leverage

the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, its most visible

and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a

desire to attack the Homeland."

 

 

Although only a portion of the instability in Iraq is attributed to

al-

Qaeda and the group had no substantial power base there before the

U.S. invasion, Bush again cast the war as a battle against its

members, whom his aides have described as key provocateurs there.

 

 

"These people have sworn allegiance to the very same man who ordered

the attack on September the 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden," the

president said. "And they want us to leave parts of the world, like

Iraq, so they can establish a safe haven from which to spread their

poisonous ideology. And we are steadfast in our determination to not

only protect the American people, but to protect these young

democracies."

 

 

Bush's top advisers also pushed back at the proposition from many

Democrats that the White House allowed the pursuit of al-Qaeda to be

diverted by going after Saddam Hussein. Briefing reporters yesterday,

Frances Fragos Townsend, Bush's homeland security adviser, took issue

with the suggestion that the president had ignored warnings from the

intelligence community that attacking Iraq would stimulate al-Qaeda's

drive for recruits and influence.

 

 

"You're assuming it's a zero-sum game, which is what I don't

understand," Townsend said. "The fact is, we were harassing them in

Afghanistan, we're harassing them in Iraq, we're harassing them in

other ways, non-militarily, around the world. And the answer is,

every

time you poke the hornet's nest, they are bound to come back and push

back on you. That doesn't suggest to me that we shouldn't be doing

it."

 

 

But many Democrats questioned the administration's explanations,

seizing on the key judgments of the new intelligence estimate as yet

another reason to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and changing the

administration's mission of the past four years.

 

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said the current

situation

in Iraq "has helped to energize" al-Qaeda. "Changing our strategy in

Iraq and narrowing our military mission to countering al-Qaeda

terrorism -- as a bipartisan majority in the Senate now favors --

would be the single greatest thing we could do to undermine al-

Qaeda's

ability to use Iraq as a recruiting and propaganda tool fueling the

growth of regional terrorist groups," he said in a statement.

 

 

Al-Qaeda's participation in the Iraqi violence has figured

particularly heavily in recent administration arguments for a

continued U.S. troop presence there, because White House strategists

regard it as a politically salable reason for staying and continuing

to fight.

 

 

Some terrorism analysts say Bush has used inflated rhetoric to depict

al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the same group of extremists that

attacked

the United States on Sept. 11 -- noting that the group did not exist

until after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. These analysts say

Bush also has overlooked the contribution that U.S. actions have made

to the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has been described as kind

of

a franchise of the main al-Qaeda network headed by bin Laden.

 

 

Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA analyst who has been involved in

previous

intelligence estimates, said that the administration has correctly

identified the danger posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq and that there are

indeed links between the Iraq group and the larger international

terrorist network. But he said the White House is drawing the wrong

conclusion, and argued instead that it is the U.S. presence in Iraq

that is fueling the terrorists' cause.

 

 

"Iraq matters because it has become a cause celebre and because

groups

like al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda central exploit the image of the

United States being out to occupy Muslim lands," Pillar said.

 

 

Referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Clinton administration official Daniel

S. Benjamin, who has written books and articles on international

terrorism, said: "These are bad guys. These are jihadists." He added:

"That doesn't mean we [should] stay in Iraq the way we have been,

because we are not making the situation any better. We're creating

terrorists in Iraq, we are creating terrorists outside of Iraq who

are

inspired by what's going on in Iraq. . . . The longer we stay, the

more terrorists we create."

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR200...

 

--------------------