Hate to say 'We told you so"

[George Gervin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215395,00.html



WASHINGTON — Democrats blasted Republicans' handling of the Iraq war in an intelligence assessment showing the U.S. occupation there has increased the terrorist threat.

The report is evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch.

Their criticisms came in a collection of statements sent to reporters Sunday amid the disclosure of a National Intelligence Estimate that concluded the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The report was completed in April and represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, according to an intelligence official. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity on Sunday because the report is classified.

"Unfortunately this report is just confirmation that the Bush administration's stay-the-course approach to the Iraq war has not just made the war more difficult and more deadly for our troops, but has also made the war on terror more dangerous for every American," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic effort to take control of the House.

Retired Military Officers Slam Rumsfeld on Iraq War Pentagon Faces Tough Choices on U.S. Troop Levels in Iraq Burdensome Weight of Unity Could Force Iraq Break-Up Senate Intel Panel Wants More Info Declassified in Iraq Reports "It's time for a new direction in this country," Emanuel, D-Ill., said in the statement.

"Press reports say our nation's intelligence services have confirmed that President Bush's repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course have made America less safe," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "No election-year White House PR campaign can hide this truth."

A White House spokesman, Blair Jones, said, "We don't comment on classified documents." But he said the published accounts' "characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document."

In a statement issued Sunday afternoon, Bush's national intelligence director, John Negroponte, said, "What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat."

He added, "The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."

The White House issued a written rebuttal that argued administration officials have been making some of the same arguments as in the intelligence estimate. A White House strategy booklet released this month described the terrorists as more dispersed and less centralized and still a threat to the United States.

Bush himself said on Sept. 5 that "terrorist danger remains" and the broader terrorist movement is becoming more spread out and self-directed. He also quoted Usama bin Laden describing Iraq as the central battlefield in the fight against terrorism.

The president has said the United States is safer since the Sept. 11 attacks and that fighting the terrorists in Iraq keeps them from attacking America. He has said leaving Iraq would make the world less safe.

Democrats said Bush had misled people about Iraq's contribution to the terrorist threat.

"It is abundantly clear that we need a new direction in Iraq by strategically redeploying our troops to fight and win the real war on terror and make our country safer," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "The American people know it and our military leaders do as well. It's only the Republican leaders who have their heads in the sand, stubbornly refusing to change course and making the war on terror harder to win."

Rep. Jane Harman, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and one of a few lawmakers to have read the classified report, said she agrees with the findings.

"Even capturing the remaining top Al Qaeda leadership isn't going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn't going to change a failed policy in Iraq," she said. "This administration is trying to change the subject. I don't think voters are going to buy that."

In congressional races across the country, Democratic candidates used the report to attack their opponents and tie them to Bush's faltering strategy. In New York, for example, Democratic challenger Kirsten Gillibrand pointed to the report and said GOP Rep. John Sweeney "has supported President Bush 100 percent of the time on Iraq, refusing to ask tough questions or push for honest answers."

"Now is the time for a new direction, and real accountability and oversight," she said, then called for U.S. forces to be moved out of Iraq within six months to a year.

Three leading Republicans — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — defended the war in Iraq and said it is vital that U.S. troops stay in the fight. None of them had seen the classified report, but were responding to press coverage of it.

McConnell suggested that the fight in Iraq has stopped terrorists from attacking the U.S. and leaving would only create "a breeding ground for attacks here at home."

"Attacks here at home stopped when we started fighting Al Qaeda where they live, rather than responding after they hit," McConnell said in a statement.

McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation" that if the U.S. were to fail in Iraq, "then our problems will be much more complicated."

But at least one Republican — Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — said he was very concerned about the intelligence report and agreed that the war had intensified Islamic fundamentalism.

"I think there is a much more fundamental issue how we respond," he said on a cable news network." "And that is what we do with the Iraq war itself. That's the focal point for inspiring more radical Islam fundamentalism, and that's a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to."



Yes we must stay the failed course. If you disagree with the failed course then you want the terrorists to win...

[Usually Lurkin]

wow, leaked details of a report completed in April, and held until election time, not representative of the entire document (link) and reported by the AP with the line, "The report is evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch." (Is there any wonder why Michelle Malkin calls it the "Advocacy Press"?) are posted here by GG.

Not real surprising. But let me ask a couple of questions:

Considering the boost it gave Al Queda when we withdrew or failed to respond in the past, what do you think their response would be if we withdrew now, or if we'd failed to respond in the first place?

Do you think that if we had not gone into Iraq, but had kept 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan (as suggested just now by Bill Clinton) that the terrorists would not have figured out that they could use the overthrow of the taliban for a recruitment speech?

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

wow, leaked details of a report completed in April, and held until election time, not representative of the entire document (link) and reported by the AP with the line, "The report is evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch." (Is there any wonder why Michelle Malkin calls it the "Advocacy Press"?) are posted here by GG.

Not real surprising. But let me ask a couple of questions:

Considering the boost it gave Al Queda when we withdrew or failed to respond in the past, what do you think their response would be if we withdrew now, or if we'd failed to respond in the first place?

No one

Do you think that if we had not gone into Iraq, but had kept 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan (as suggested just now by Bill Clinton) that the terrorists would not have figured out that they could use the overthrow of the taliban for a recruitment speech?

When did we withdraw? And from what?

We did respond.We arrested and jailed those responsible for the First WTC bombers.

Well we can say that the rest of the civilized world, including Muslims, supported our response in Afghanistan. I believe that most the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the radical element that has forced their way to the forefront. The perception of the Afghan response was that it was just and we had a right to do it in order to destroy the Taliban. I guess there would have some recruitment going no doubt but Iraq was the holy gril for recruiting. Bush essentially thumnbed his nose at the rest of the world (for which conservatives cheered) and went to war with saddam Hussein. Many people at the time questioned our motives ,as did some in our country but many of those folks gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. There were many epople in the world who don't trust us , many of whom are muslims, and saw our action as unecessary and imperialistic. Since the evidence we used to invade Iraq has not proven to be as accurate as we stated early on many of those who initially questioned us now regard our action as an attack on muslims. Let's count the number of family members of innocent Iraqi's that have been inadvertantly killed by us as another source for hatred. Our action in Iraq proved to the radicals, in their minds, that we intend to stay and occupy their holy land. I once heard that perception is reality and in this case I believe that to be true. Iraq seems to have been an Islamic jihadist recruiters wet dream.

So in short no I don't think Afghanistan would have increased recruitment of these nuts as Iraq did.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

wow, leaked details of a report completed in April, and held until election time, not representative of the entire document (link) and reported by the AP with the line, "The report is evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch." (Is there any wonder why Michelle Malkin calls it the "Advocacy Press"?) are posted here by GG.

that line in the article should be grounds for it to be on the op-ed page only.

Not real surprising. But let me ask a couple of questions:

Considering the boost it gave Al Queda when we withdrew or failed to respond in the past, what do you think their response would be if we withdrew now, or if we'd failed to respond in the first place?

there are two distinct questions.

the first is a yes, we cannot just disengage from Iraq at this point in time. we must not leave until we have restored some semblance of a central authority, hopefully not controlled by radical islamist, that would preclude Iraq becoming what Afganistan was under the taliban.

the response to 9/11 was the invasion of afganistan and the removal of the taliban. the impact was a loss of al queda's ability to openly operate camps, a lack of their ease of travel from country to country and a knot on the finaces. that was a strong response that frnakly was not carried out to its conclusion.

the invasion of iraq was not a response to 9/11 except to those in the current administration who worked so hard to forge a link that did and does not exist. so, in the context of iraq and if there had NOT been an invasion of iraq, no, if the us had not invaded iraq the failure to invade would not have benefitted al queda.

Do you think that if we had not gone into Iraq, but had kept 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan (as suggested just now by Bill Clinton) that the terrorists would not have figured out that they could use the overthrow of the taliban for a recruitment speech?

no, not in the least. the taliban were a very unjust society, it doesn't seem the world's muslims had too many tears about that repressive regime. heck, the taliban didn't even get along with the crazy iranians!

[kg_veteran]

I think the real story here is why classified NIEs are being published by the press. It appears to me to be another case of the New York Times putting its anti-Bush campaign ahead of the security interests of the United States.

Until the entire classified document is declassified, how can any of us possibly comment on what it says or means? I certainly don't trust the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the AP to get it right.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think the real story here is why classified NIEs are being published by the press. It appears to me to be another case of the New York Times putting its anti-Bush campaign ahead of the security interests of the United States.

Until the entire classified document is declassified, how can any of us possibly comment on what it says or means? I certainly don't trust the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the AP to get it right.

Let me guess you trust Fox News?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

When did we withdraw? And from what?

uh, for one example:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/MN115486.DTL

"Whether bin Laden was actually involved in the 1993 Mogadishu attack is the subject of much dispute. Bin Laden has bragged that Somalia was his "greatest victory. . . . It is true that my companions fought with (deceased Somali warlord Mohamed) Farah Aidid's @cq forces against the U.S. troops in Somalia...

"The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat -- dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat," bin Laden said later.

After the U.S. withdrawal, he focused even more of his energies on the world's only purported superpower. The devastating assaults on the East African embassies, the destroyer Cole and the horrific events of Sept. 11 were among the results. "

as far as what joe Iraqi thinks of Americans in Iraq, I think polls have consistently shown that approval ratings for the war are much higher in Iraq than they are among the Democratic party here in the US.

as far as the "world's muslims" that might be recruited by the Iraq speech, are these the same that have been recruited by speeches against cartoons, against Theo Van Gogh, and against the Pope?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Let me guess you trust Fox News?

Not if they're going to comment on portions of a document that hasn't been declassified.

[kg_veteran]

More of What You Won't Read in the NYT

link

Yesterday, we noted that the MSM (along with their fellow travelers in the intel community), had apparently "cherry-picked" information from a recent National Intelligence Estimate, making their case that the Bush Administration's War on Terror had actually made the problem worse. In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.

Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.

[dude1394]

At the end of the day the only thing that will matter is the scoreboard. If we win in Iraq, we win a huge earth-changing battle that will change the course of the middle-east for millions.

If we run away like the democrats want us too, it will be a horrible defeat for the free-world. And they WILL keep coming. They WILL keep coming.

Dems and liberals can cherry-pick reports, they can think that if we draw our head into our shell we'll be all peaches and cream. It is false, it is dangerous. This battle must be enjoined and we must prevail. To lose would be disastrous not only for the US and the west but for the Middle east as well.

Their culture and their people are mired in despair and horrific violence. If we do not prevail the entire middle east will either continue to be ruled by Sadaam, Basher, Khomeini-like dictators or by Taliban-like islamic-fascists.

Our partner in this IS Iraq and they are taking the brunt of this war. To see the democrats in this country being willing to sell them out for momentary political power tells me all I ever need to know about the integrity of the democrat party.

I have no doubt that taking the islamo-fascists head-on brings on a radicalization of some, how could it not. However it's irrelevant to doing what needs to be done, we cannot run from this and that is the only other option here.

[dude1394]

Anyone taking the word of the NYTimes for anything is being naive. It is a megaphone for the democrat party and everyone in the world knows it.

[mcsluggo]

d'oh. double.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

More of What You Won't Read in the NYT

link

Yesterday, we noted that the MSM (along with their fellow travelers in the intel community), had apparently "cherry-picked" information from a recent National Intelligence Estimate, making their case that the Bush Administration's War on Terror had actually made the problem worse. In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.

Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

actualy, the WAshington post article I read DID make both of the above points. Al-quada as a cohesive network had been damaged and their leaderships ability to directly coordinate actions has been greatly hampered (although, as we all know, this was largely due to the operations in Afghanistan, not Iraq). However the post article quoted the report as saying that there were more overall terrorist cells, of a more diffuse structure.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

The post article said that both W and Osama have clearly stated that Iraq has become the key battleground going forward. Of course this is true BECAUSE we invaded Iraq, it was not true BEFORE we invaded Iraq. I can agree with his ripple affect comment, I think we just disagree on which way the waves are rolling.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

[/qoute] no argument here. AlQuada is heinous despicable organization.
[qoute]

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.

The times/post authors were reporting on their sources' overall feel for the report general tilt. Obviously THIS comentator has never read a government report. Can anyone here imagine the professionals at NIE/NSC/Pentagon/etc... writing a report like an op-ed piece in a firebrand journal? It is not a black and white world, and technocrats appreciate that. When giving an overall assessment, there are good and bad factors to weigh. Any serious anlyst will mention all, and then weigh them. DUh.

(furthermore, the professional staff are writing reports to be delivered to their political appointee bosses. You hope that this fact won't tilt assessments, but it can't help but affect the way assessments are packaged. If you are saying something your bosses don't want to hear, soften the blow; if you are saying something they DO want to hear: trumpet loudly.)


But what is important was the overall assessment of the piece. Unfortunatley, As KG has already pointed out, we can't see the actual piece to know if the times/post reporting of the overall tilt of the report was correct , but that was what the post/times were trying to report.

The comments from THIS author try to pretend that if there is anything in the report that is NOT doom-n-gloom, then the report is "balanced" (ie equally good and bad). BS. Even a report on the CUban or Venezuelan government will have some good things to say (cuba does a great job educating its populace, Venezuela under Chavez has greatly reduced extreme poverty, etc...) but if anyone here read quotes to those effect from a US Govt document would you really assume that the overall tilt of the piece was pro-castro or pro-chavez?

C'mon now.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

At the end of the day the only thing that will matter is the scoreboard. If we win in Iraq, we win a huge earth-changing battle that will change the course of the middle-east for millions.

If we run away like the democrats want us too, it will be a horrible defeat for the free-world. And they WILL keep coming. They WILL keep coming.

Dems and liberals can cherry-pick reports, they can think that if we draw our head into our shell we'll be all peaches and cream. It is false, it is dangerous. This battle must be enjoined and we must prevail. To lose would be disastrous not only for the US and the west but for the Middle east as well.

Their culture and their people are mired in despair and horrific violence. If we do not prevail the entire middle east will either continue to be ruled by Sadaam, Basher, Khomeini-like dictators or by Taliban-like islamic-fascists.

Our partner in this IS Iraq and they are taking the brunt of this war. To see the democrats in this country being willing to sell them out for momentary political power tells me all I ever need to know about the integrity of the democrat party.

I have no doubt that taking the islamo-fascists head-on brings on a radicalization of some, how could it not. However it's irrelevant to doing what needs to be done, we cannot run from this and that is the only other option here.

I appreciate that you truly hold the positive views you espouse here, and respect that opinion.

Do you HONESTLY believe that anyone that hold different views of the merits of this conflict is either craven or lacking in integrity?

[dalmations202]

The post article said that both W and Osama have clearly stated that Iraq has become the key battleground going forward. Of course this is true BECAUSE we invaded Iraq, it was not true BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

Either way, it is still for the better. Before we invaded Iraq, they were taking the battlefield to NYC, after the invasion we all agree that the battlefield is Iraq.

Hum, would the average American rather have the battle in Iraq, or on American soil?

Would the average American rather be able to fight a known enemy on their soil, or a questionable one on ours?

Would the average American rather fight a physical battle for truth and justice, or a battle of the media for political benefit and political correctness?

I know my answers to these questions, but I am curious about some of the others on this site.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

actualy, the WAshington post article I read DID make both of the above points. Al-quada as a cohesive network had been damaged and their leaderships ability to directly coordinate actions has been greatly hampered (although, as we all know, this was largely due to the operations in Afghanistan, not Iraq). However the post article quoted the report as saying that there were more overall terrorist cells, of a more diffuse structure.

First, the author said, "Didn't see that in the NYT article," so your points about the WaPo article, while well-taken, don't really contradict what he said.

Second, I've read the WaPo article, and the comments you mentioned are in the article, but they are buried down in the article and obscured by the overall thrust of the article, which is that the war in Iraq has made terrorism worse. That's simply the Post putting its slant on things by selectively quoting and interpreting the NIE.

The post article said that both W and Osama have clearly stated that Iraq has become the key battleground going forward. Of course this is true BECAUSE we invaded Iraq, it was not true BEFORE we invaded Iraq. I can agree with his ripple affect comment, I think we just disagree on which way the waves are rolling.

The NYT article doesn't talk about those things, but the Post article does, and thereby confirms what this writer is saying -- that success in Iraq will mean success in the war on terror.

The times/post authors were reporting on their sources' overall feel for the report general tilt. Obviously THIS comentator has never read a government report.

That's pretty humorous. Obviously, you didn't follow the link and bother to find out who this commentator is. According to his blog, he is a "former member of the U.S. intelligence community. During a 20-year career in military intelligence, he served as an analyst, operations planner, flight commander, briefer, nuclear targeteer and aircrew member among other positions. Now retired, he maintains extensive contacts within the U.S. intelligence community."

I think he's read a government report or two. In fact, the reason he wrote this commentary was because his sources also had access to the NIE, and he was providing additional insight into what it said.

But what is important was the overall assessment of the piece. Unfortunatley, As KG has already pointed out, we can't see the actual piece to know if the times/post reporting of the overall tilt of the report was correct , but that was what the post/times were trying to report.

The comments from THIS author try to pretend that if there is anything in the report that is NOT doom-n-gloom, then the report is "balanced" (ie equally good and bad). BS. Even a report on the CUban or Venezuelan government will have some good things to say (cuba does a great job educating its populace, Venezuela under Chavez has greatly reduced extreme poverty, etc...) but if anyone here read quotes to those effect from a US Govt document would you really assume that the overall tilt of the piece was pro-castro or pro-chavez?

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the NIE says when it's declassified, because you know that's coming...

[kg_veteran]

Speaking of which...

Declassify the Terrorism NIE
How to defeat selective politically motivated leaks.
link

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

As media scoops go, those based on "classified" information seem to have a special cachet. But judging from the latest, selective intelligence leak about terrorism, we wonder if anyone would bother to read this stuff if it didn't have the word "secret" slapped on it.

That's our reaction to Sunday's New York Times report claiming that a 2006 national intelligence estimate, or NIE, concludes that "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," according to one of the unidentified "intelligence officials" cited in the article. This is supposedly because the war has provoked radical Islamists to hate America even more than they already did before they hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings. If this is the kind of insight we pay our spooks to generate, we're in more trouble than we thought.

It's impossible to know how true this report is, of course, since the NIE itself hasn't been leaked. The reports are based on what sources claim the NIE says, but we don't know who those sources are and what motivations they might have. Since their spin coincides rather conveniently with the argument made by Democratic critics of the war, and since this leak has also conveniently sprung in high campaign season, wise readers will be skeptical.

The White House responded yesterday by saying the full NIE on "Trends in Global Terrorism" is far more nuanced and complex than the press reports claim. Spokesman Tony Snow added that one "thing the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse." So here's our suggestion for President Bush: Declassify the entire NIE.

It's not as if NIEs usually contain sensitive raw intelligence. They're more like Council on Foreign Relations reports, full of consensus analysis and glorified by the mere fact of being "secret." To the extent that any passages might compromise sources and methods, those parts could be redacted or summarized. Meanwhile, disclosure would give the American public a valuable window into the thinking that goes on at places like the CIA. Since some of our spooks are leaking selectively to make the President look bad, Mr. Bush should return the favor by letting the public inspect the quality of analysis that their tax dollars are buying.

Releasing the NIE would also show that the White House has learned something since 2003, which is when the last pre-election bout of selective intelligence leaks began. That leak du jour claimed that an October 2002 NIE had contradicted Mr. Bush's claims in his [RANDO]State of the Union address about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. We happened to gain access to the complete NIE, however, and reported on July 17, 2003, that the leaked accounts were incomplete and misleading. The Senate Intelligence Committee vindicated our account a year later, but the Bush Administration could have reduced the political damage by declassifying that 2002 NIE immediately.

As for the substance of the 2006 NIE's alleged claims, does anyone doubt that many jihadis are rallying against the American presence in Iraq? The newspapers tell us that much every day. Whether the war in Iraq has produced more terrorist hatred than would otherwise exist, however, is a matter of opinion and strategic judgment.

We recall, for example, that one of Osama bin Laden's justifications for declaring war against the U.S. was American enforcement of sanctions and a no-fly zone against Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Bin Laden didn't need the war to hate us. More broadly, the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has deprived the jihadis of two safe havens and sources of funds. So while there are still many al Qaeda-type terror cells out there, there's no reason to believe they are any more dangerous now than before April 2003. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the terrorists who was harbored in Iraq before the war, certainly isn't any more dangerous; he's dead.

The real issue at stake here is a political and policy fight over the future of Iraq. The Democrats claim that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terror and so a rapid U.S. withdrawal would leave the U.S. with more resources to fight elsewhere. Mr. Bush says Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, and that withdrawing would create a vacuum that the Islamists would fill and give them a potential new state-supported base of operations. That's the choice voters really ought to be thinking about as they go to the polls in November, and if the NIE has something useful to say about that debate, Mr. Bush should disarm the selective leakers in his bureaucracy by making it public.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Either way, it is still for the better. Before we invaded Iraq, they were taking the battlefield to NYC, after the invasion we all agree that the battlefield is Iraq.

Hum, would the average American rather have the battle in Iraq, or on American soil?

Would the average American rather be able to fight a known enemy on their soil, or a questionable one on ours?

Would the average American rather fight a physical battle for truth and justice, or a battle of the media for political benefit and political correctness?

I know my answers to these questions, but I am curious about some of the others on this site.

The avg American want's to be told the truth and not spin from the White House. The avg American wants to know all of the facts before deciding to start a war.. The avg American understands that the majority of of the insurgency is related to factions within Iraq and not al-qaeda..

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

(furthermore, the professional staff are writing reports to be delivered to their political appointee bosses. You hope that this fact won't tilt assessments, but it can't help but affect the way assessments are packaged. If you are saying something your bosses don't want to hear, soften the blow; if you are saying something they DO want to hear: trumpet loudly.)

exactly. We don't know the political leanings of who this was written for (it is still classified), but we do know that the intelligence community is left leaning. We can assume the political leanings of whoever leaked by what was leaked and to whom it was leaked (we know the whole things wasn't leaked), and we pretty much know the political leanings of The Times and the Post. Can we really trust any version of what "the overall tone of the report" is considering the information pipeline through which we are receiving the information?

By the way, shouldn't there be some kind of media outrage at leaks of classified information for political purposes?

[kg_veteran]

W.House considers declassifying intelligence report
Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:41 AM ET
link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Tuesday it may declassify an intelligence report in order to respond to Democrats who say the document shows the Iraq war has been a distraction from the war on terrorism.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said officials were "giving serious consideration" to releasing the National Intelligence Estimate on the U.S. terrorism threat to demonstrate that the section being seized on by Democrats is only one part of the overall picture.

The report, part of which was leaked to the media, has become an issue in the runup to November 7 mid-term elections when control of both houses of Congress is at stake.

Part of the report said U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq war has made the worldwide threat from Islamist extremists more dangerous.

It has inspired their growing militant movement and created a ready source of anti-American rhetoric, current and former intelligence officials familiar with the document say.

Perino said one paragraph in the lengthy report was "wildly taken out of context" and that some officials believe the whole document, provided to the U.S. Congress in April, should be released to put that paragraph in context.

Democrats hoping to overturn Republican control of the U.S. Congress quickly latched on to the issue to charge that Bush's pursuit of the Iraq war was a distraction from the overall war on terrorism.

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Republican chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, urged the administration on Monday to declassify the document so Americans could reach their own conclusions.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

W.House considers declassifying intelligence report
Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:41 AM ET
link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Tuesday it may declassify an intelligence report in order to respond to Democrats who say the document shows the Iraq war has been a distraction from the war on terrorism.

...

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Republican chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, urged the administration on Monday to declassify the document so Americans could reach their own conclusions.

One day, we will see that this whole thing was orchestrated by Karl Rove.

Then there will be media outrage over the leaking of classified information for political purposes.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

One day, we will see that this whole thing was orchestrated by Karl Rove.

Then there will be media outrage over the leaking of classified information for political purposes.

Ha!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I appreciate that you truly hold the positive views you espouse here, and respect that opinion.

Do you HONESTLY believe that anyone that hold different views of the merits of this conflict is either craven or lacking in integrity?

I do honestly have a problem with the democrat party. Very much so at the moment. I feel they have lost their way terribly. To coddle folks like Michael Moore and that ilk makes me seriously doubt their integrity.

Look at their leadership. John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy. I doubt those peoples integrity greatly. It is actually nice to see some new leadership there...Obama, Ford, even Edwards for example.

To have a John Kerry as their standard bearer makes me doubt their integrity as I greatly doubt his. Joe Biden seems to have integrity, I don't agree with him but I don't sense he is willing to see us lose this to gain political power, I cannot say the same for Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, etc.

The one with the most intestinal fortitude in that group unfortunately is Hillary Clinton. Strange but my opinion.

It is possible that I shouldn't doubt their integrity so much as I should doubt their judgement, but they don't make their cases in a way that makes me think it is out of conviction. Possibly it is just their 60's passivity that they are showing. IMO that is truly dangerous to this country, I wouldn't trust them at all.

[Mavdog]

the NIE could be declassified so the public can determine for themselves what it says.

unfortunately, my prediction is that upon its declassification and release there will continue to be two different opinions on what it says.

that is due to the manner that the NIE approaches the issue, which is traditionally non-political. it will have fuel for each side of the debate, and each side will pull from the estimate what they see as proving their argument.

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

exactly. We don't know the political leanings of who this was written for (it is still classified), but we do know that the intelligence community is left leaning. We can assume the political leanings of whoever leaked by what was leaked and to whom it was leaked (we know the whole things wasn't leaked), and we pretty much know the political leanings of The Times and the Post. Can we really trust any version of what "the overall tone of the report" is considering the information pipeline through which we are receiving the information?

By the way, shouldn't there be some kind of media outrage at leaks of classified information for political purposes?

the people who wrote the report should have NO "political leanings" that influence them.

I'd like to hear how you "know that the intelligence community is left leaning"? in fact, I would surmise just the opposite, as many of the intelligence community began their careers as military, not exactly the home of "left leaning" people.

don't begin to question the report due to the newpapers that wrote the story. that dog won't hunt, these journals do have accountability for what they publish, and if they publish an inaccurate article it will surely be exposed.

as for findng those who leak info for political purposes, I'm confident that the guilty (present and past releases of info included) are both in and out of the current administration.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the people who wrote the report should have NO "political leanings" that influence them.

I'd like to hear how you "know that the intelligence community is left leaning"? in fact, I would surmise just the opposite, as many of the intelligence community began their careers as military, not exactly the home of "left leaning" people.

don't begin to question the report due to the newpapers that wrote the story. that dog won't hunt, these journals do have accountability for what they publish, and if they publish an inaccurate article it will surely be exposed.

from an email posted at the corner:
As a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, I can assure you that the culture at CIA is most definitely not "right-of-center." The CIA may have serious disagreements with State about specific policy issues, but the employees at the two institutions come largely from the same left-leaning political science/international relations degreed university pool.

I think there's been a book or two about the CIA versus the Bush administration.

that is due to the manner that the NIE approaches the issue, which is traditionally non-political. it will have fuel for each side of the debate, and each side will pull from the estimate what they see as proving their argument.

If you believe that, then how do you dismiss the political slant of the "pipeline" I describe, but still account for the political slant of what we've read so far? It's either a random sampling of an unbiased report, or the sampling or the report (or both) is biased.

[Mavdog]

UL, I don't believe the NIE is written by the CIA....research to follow.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

from an email posted at the corner:
As a former intelligence analyst at the CIA, I can assure you that the culture at CIA is most definitely not "right-of-center." The CIA may have serious disagreements with State about specific policy issues, but the employees at the two institutions come largely from the same left-leaning political science/international relations degreed university pool.

I think there's been a book or two about the CIA versus the Bush administration.


If you believe that, then how do you dismiss the political slant of the "pipeline" I describe, but still account for the political slant of what we've read so far? It's either a random sampling of an unbiased report, or the sampling or the report (or both) is biased.

If it is negative about Bush it's liberally biased. If it's positive it is the truth. Wow you can have it both ways!

[FishForLunch]

Democrats are outraged that someone would dare ask Clinton any tough question, but if it is Bush they would rather leak classified information even if it may hurt our country just to take a dig at Bush. I guess only the lefties can have it (or take it) both ways

[dude1394]

Quite sad when I see a lot more backbone in foreign leaders than I do the democrat party. Also quite sad when citizens (of supposedly the CIA ) are willing to leak classified information for political gain. It would be nice if they could track down those scum and prosecute them.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015384.php

Bush and Karzai Strike Back

This morning President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan had a brief press conference at the White House. After some introductory remarks, they opened the floor for questions. You can read the full transcript here.

The first question came from our old friend old friend Jennifer Loven:

This is when Bush announced that he had ordered the report declassified, to the extent possible. But there's lots more to his answer:

President Karzai, before he went on to respond to Loven's second question, added his own observations on what must have seemed to him to be an expression of sheer lunacy:

Bush also refused to be drawn into the low-class blame game that Bill Clinton played on Fox News. Asked about Clinton's accusations, he responded, in part:

And later:

As usual, the President stands head and shoulders above his critics.

Fortunately so does Hamid Karzai.

[dude1394]

And now it seems we can see just how biased, politically rotten the NYTimes is. Not to mention scum who would leak classified documents.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/De..._Judgments.pdf

First sentence.

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.

[dude1394]

Karzai for President.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/2...out-terrorism/

[Mavdog]

so, after all this hoopla, the assessment does say what the NYT said:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.
• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.

there's good news in there as well.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so, after all this hoopla, the assessment does say what the NYT said:
there's good news in there as well.

As usual however when it comes from the times you have to wonder what's been left out....again.

Writes John Hinderaker: Sadly, I don’t think the answers to these questions are much in doubt. The bureaucrat leakers are Democrats who wanted to advance their party’s interests, and the reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post were also Democrats, and were happy to oblige. The bottom line is that you just can’t get adequate information from these news sources. Their grotesque biases outweigh the resources that, in theory, they are able to devote to covering the news. They can’t even provide a balanced account of a single bureaucratic report, let alone of a war.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Democrats are outraged that someone would dare ask Clinton any tough question, but if it is Bush they would rather leak classified information even if it may hurt our country just to take a dig at Bush. I guess only the lefties can have it (or take it) both ways

I'm sorry but starting an unecessary war is good for the country? EXPOSING THE RATIONALE FOR THIS WAR BEING WRONG IS BAD FOR THE COUNTRY? Or bad for Bush?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by GG

The avg American want's to be told the truth and not spin from the White House.

I have never heard truth from any administration ever. I am old enough to go back to LBJ, and every administration spins politics, taxes, and war efforts. Every one. LBJ -Vietnam, Nixon - Watergate, Carter- Iranian hostages, Reagan-Iran Contra, GHWBush - No new taxes/Desert Storm, Clinton - Monica/ Bombings/ China/ death toll , and then you have GW - Afghanistan/ Iraq. My father tells me of the "changing of history that JFK did" and about Bay of Pigs. It has been going on throughout every elected President. If you don't learn from history, it is destine to repeat itself.

The avg American wants to know all of the facts before deciding to start a war..

No they don't. They seldom if ever have a clue. They want "perceived" justice. Sheeple. Facts can be manipulated. Some facts end up being lies, and some supposed lies are really true facts. Games get played by nations to win the "minds" of people. Example: many Germans at the time thought they were doing the correct thing, and that Hitler was a great leader. Their truth, was they are correct. History shows they weren't. History shows this because Hitler didn't win world wide conquest. Now Hitler is called "devil". Compare that to Stalin -- their are monuments to him all over Russia. His deeds and Hitlers are "comparable, but not identical", but he won.

The avg American understands that the majority of of the insurgency is related to factions within Iraq and not al-qaeda..

Semantics, that most Americans could care less about, IMO.
If I see a person who is a brutally active "skin head" and we have a battle going on against the brutally active "KKK" then they all get lumped into the same pot. Just because you say they aren't related, doesn't mean that both don't have the same philosophy and don't do the same things.

Iraq was/is a base for extreme Muslims who government WAS sympathetic towards the terroristic Muslim. Now, they have fewer places to be protected.