Only 4 of 30 pages of the report have been declassified, not the entire "estimate."

Another example of right-wing double speak: saying you did something that you didn't really do. The Bible calls it bearing false witness, I believe.

The Iraq-only NIE won't be released until January. Just in time for the elections; of 2008, that is.

The document serves as talking points for both sides. It says that the war in Iraq has made American less safe by giving jihadist a rallying cry.

It also says that if we lose in Iraq it will embolden terrorists. That a no-brainer.

Bottom line: Thanks to the war in Iraq there are more terrorists, but if we lose those terrorists will be bolder.

Matt, the best part is, most of those terrorists are in Iraq, where we have 150,000 troops and lots of guns and bullets and tanks and shells and planes and bombs so we can slaughter all those terrorists.

Them being over there in Iraq means they aren't blowing up things in America or or flying planes into buildings in America.

Iraq is flypaper for terrorists. And they're being killed there in increasingly large and increasingly satisfying numbers.

Meanwhile, tribal leaders representing 80 percent of the Sunni in Anbar province recently agreed with the Iraqi government to raise a tribal army of 30,000 fighters to fight alongside Iraq and the coalition to kill off Al-Qaeda and foreign jihadis in Iraq.

A good way to defeat terrorists is to kill them. More terrorists will be killed more quickly because we are in Iraq.

Them being over there in Iraq means they aren't blowing up things in America or or flying planes into buildings in America.

And that's supposed to win Iraqi's hearts and minds?! It's no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis believe that the American invasion has made things worse. We're doing them the favor of generating and fighting terrorists in their neighborhoods instead of ours. We're subjecting their families, their children to brutality and death so that we don't have to face it here. You've given leadership a whole new face: never do something you can't make someone else do instead. That will be the Bush legacy.

And they're being killed there in increasingly large and increasingly satisfying numbers.

Along with American soldiers and countless Iraqi innocents--women and children.

More terrorists will be killed more quickly because we are in Iraq.

More people that would have will become terrorists because we are in Iraq.

Another commenter you had was right, Bill. Stick to local politics. You do well at it. Leave the national politics to those who cover it without the doublespeak and transparent spin. You embarrass yourself with posts like this.

I watched 3,000 of my fellow Americans die on a gorgeous Tuesday morning five years ago.

Whaddya call 4,000 dead terrorists? A good start. May many more meet Allah soon.

And if you read the declassified NIE, you realize that Iraq is attracting al-Qaeda and fellow-traveler Islamofacist jihadis, where, as it turns out, we're killing them in large numbers.

I wish we didn't have to suffer casualties on our side to win this war, but there is no war ever won without casualties and the alternative - not fighting the war - is worse, given that the same people who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 are feverishly trying to get nukes and such to kills millions of us on some future "9/11s," the response to which from our side will only be one thing: Vaporizing the Middle East and killing a billion people, most of whom are innocent.

Better we fight the jihadis now then later, with nukes. That way, fewer innocents on both sides will die.

Practically speaking, being against this war means being for a far more horrendous and costly war later. Hstory proves that the costs of inaction in the face of an implacable enemy always rise.