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.
46 comments:
Thanks for posting this for us.
I forwarded this to Deborah Howell, the ombudsman (ombudswoman?) of the Washington Post.
On my own blog, I noted how selective the New York Treason's story was. Nice to have additional info, spook.
Thanks very much for confirming the obvious. From my post on your post:
As long as the media goes along, unconfronted, undefeated, it will continue to bias the news towards its un-American perspective. It cares not one iota about we bloggers, but it does care about national embarassment on mainstream outlets -- not just a proverbial cruise missile launched at an empty training camp, but an ongoing campaign of discrediting and embarassing the decision-makers at these papers. The NIE story is the perfect launch vehicle.
Will Bush fight or fold?
Great blog!! You're really providing a valuable service here, thank you.
Heard this on Rush. A had a feeling there was more to this when I first heard it. Thank you.
Thanks for your great reporting on the nie report, spook.
A very inisightful analysis; thank you helping to shed light on maybe the most important aspect of our modern political culture: the continual attempts to follow Vladamir Ilych Lenin's techniques of language manipulation to secure political advantage.
Thank you for the courageous and timely post!
Spook,
New to your site, but an old hand who appreciates your insights. Excellent work!
blame the media... yeah but if you wingnuts turned off rush you wouldn't know what to think. cluelessbastards.
Thanks for publishing this. It's good information and it will be interesting to see what the MSM and the Democrats will do with it, if they don't just ignore it. Apparently President Bush has decided to declassify parts of this NIE so we can see more of it. But I have to ask, how is publishing this classified information okay, when it's wrong for the NYT to publish leaks? Was the information that you published properly declassified by an appropriate authority? If not, how can you justify publishing it?
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.
Apparently, you didn't read the NYT article.
Right in the opening paragraph, it states that the the War in Iraq has created a "new generation" of Islamic radicalism.
The article later makes clear that the "new generation" isn't necessarily al Qaeda, but a "new class of 'self-generating' cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection..."
So rather than contradicting the NYT, your (leaked) quote above actually supports what NYT wrote -- that the threat has "metastasized" beyond al Qaeda, making "the overall terrorism problem worse" (emphasis mine).
Ken,
Obviously, YOU didn't read all of Spook's post...he addresses the "new generation" of jihadists in the very next paragraph.
The clue phone is ringing...it's for you...
More data is better... but it is still, as you say, just one side.
"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."
Um, that doesn't sound like a "good" result. It would seem to make the threat far more difficult to track, predict, or attack.
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." and
"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
I don't think we and the jihadists have the same definitions of 'success' and 'failure'...
"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..
Perhaps in Iraq proper, but it seems to be gaining in popularity in Afghanistan and Moslem areas of Africa...
"Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."
This seems self-evident; the question is whether our current efforts are actually _making_ any progress...
I don't see "selective releases" doing anything to clear up this debate. Each side will spin to their own advantage. Spook86, do you have any idea what the chances are of the -entire- report getting opened up?
Great article! Have you noticed in the few responses from liberals that they only spew hate and profanity?
It's a great service when you place much needed meat on the bones of the typical MSM-spun anti Bush hit piece. Thanks for your effort!
I don’t see a contradiction between the report stating that US led efforts have “seriously damaged al Qaida’s leadership and disrupted operations and the fact that the American invasion of Iraq has spawned “a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since 9/11.” This is particularly true since the report itself states that these jihadists are more diffuse and decentralized.
First, yes, the US can claim considerable success in removing important elements of the al Qaeda leadership from action (KSM, Hambali, etc.) However, as your own cite above notes, “the people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing.” Although the report states that they lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse,” that does not necessarily mean they are incompetent. The Times article noted that Michael Hayden noted in April that “united by little more than their anti-Western agendas.” Particularly as the report also “examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.” In “Understanding Terror Networks” Marc Sageman argues that this is the direction in which terrorists are moving to, Cyber Jihad, where people with similar aims, and goals can meet and reinforce each other’s world view and in time plan and carry out terrorist attacks without any guidance from the al Qaeda leadership.
As for your claim that this “doesn’t sound like al Qaeda’s pre-9/11 game plan,” that is an arguable point as other members of the intelligence community, such as Michael Scheuer, have argued that ever since the creation of al Qaeda Bin Laden has time and again asserted that his aim in creating the organization, and in fighting the US is not to win the war, but rather to awaken Muslim consciousness to the battle between Islam and the West and to incite Muslims to jihad. As such, having a more diffuse, decentralized and larger group of people committed to jihad against the west, is exactly what Osama bin Laden envisioned when he began his war against us. Additionally, Scheuer has also argued that bin Laden views this as a generational struggle meaning that he does not view al Qaeda (the organization) as the end all of his efforts, but rather al Qaeda the ideology as the ultimate aim. As evidenced by the report, Michael Hayden’s April comments, and even the Administration’s public documents where they have asserted that jihadists have turned the Iraq war into propaganda to recruit more jihadists, all seem to provide ample support to this contention.
As for the importance of the war in Iraq as a make or break point for terrorists…that’s exactly right. Iraq has become an important theater in the larger war, but withdrawal is not the only way in which we loose. Currently, we have a really bad situation on the ground with Shiites and Sunnis massacring each other on a daily basis. Most reports say that al Anbar, is almost completely out of our control and that al Qaeda in Iraq (which was supposed to have been weakened by the death of Zarqawi, has actually become more powerful and has control of various regions within the province. In the South, we have militant, fundamentalist Shiites running the show, many who are anti-American and who receive much Iranian funding and who will tolerate us only in so far as we do not attempt to disarm them. At the same time there are other Shiites, like Muqtada al Sadr, who are for the most part Iraqi nationalists, but who hate the US even more than those allied with Iran. The current Iraqi government controls little more than what the militias and other parties allow it to control. The Iraqi army is not much better, with reports of ghost soldiers (or soldiers who are on the payroll but never show up to work) and infiltrated by Shiite militias that are massacring Iraqi Sunni civilians in retaliation for Sunni insurgents targeting Shiites, adding to the momentum toward civil war. Should we withdraw? Of course not. However, we need to change our strategy, and our goals with regard to what we can achieve in Iraq.
I would continue, but that is a subject of another post, and I wanted to return to my main point. Mainly, that what you call the ripple effect or “should jihadist leaving iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight,” also has its anti-thesis, particularly in what many experts call “blowback” or the notion that if they succeed either through our withdrawal, or failure to achieve any of our objectives (or what I call the “I fight not to win, but to make you loose” mentality they will go home emboldened to recruit more jihadists and carry out the fight not only against us in Iraq, but also against their own governments. Already they have achieved an important aim; in delaying and preventing the formation of a viable democratic Iraqi state (particularly as the ethnic regions are talking about autonomous regions) and by bringing the country closer to civil war than anyone imagined when we first went in.
You also mention that there are indications that the jihadists may be “pursuing the wrong course” and that their “violent tactics are backfiring.” This is welcomed news, and hopefully far more prevalent than even the report states, however, just because Muslims don’t like the Jihadists, it does not necessarily follow that they will like us either, particularly if they perceive us as fighting against all Muslims (which is the aim of the Jihadists) as opposed to the minority that is violently fighting against us. As for the MSM’s tsunami, that reflects for the most part the rise of Islamist parties, and the compounding of these (not only by the MSM) but also by pundits with terrorist supporters (though some are). That is, in almost every election, including Iraq, it has been Islamists who have gained the most not moderates nor western oriented forces. The most telling examples are in Egypt and Iraq.
As for promoting democracy in the Muslim world, most people agree that in the long run that will be one of the most important strategies in this war on terror. However, the disagreement comes with regard to what to do with Islamists who come to power, and with the manner in which democracy is promoted. The example provided by Iraq (which included using military force to topple a dictator and the establishment of an occupation before allowing democratic forces to take over) is what many observers and experts are worried about. Indeed, the president himself seems to understand this, as he stated before the UN general assembly that
“Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions.
But the destination is the same: a free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world.
Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region.
This argument rests on a false assumption: that the Middle East was stable to begin with.”
That said, while I support the our continuing in Iraq, Afghanistan and engaged fighting this war (there aren’t many people who don’t) the piece published by the times, and indeed the parts of the report you cite (which I hear was just released in its entirety) do nothing more than present the very dire situation we are in. The claim that the Times was overly slanted seems a bit overused, particularly given the fact that while through 2005 and early 2006 as newspapers reported the things that were going on in Iraq most “die hard” supporters of the administration attributed it all to the “doom and gloom” mentality of the newspapers. The reality has now come home to roost and if anything it shows that far from being “doom and gloom” the news reported was actually not too far away from the truth. We are loosing Iraq, and it is far too important in our war to engage in partisan bickering. A better approach would be to see what is wrong with our strategy, whether we are achieving our objectives and whether any of our own actions are helping the enemy and to adjust and revise them based on those assessments, otherwise we will loose Iraq and with it the ability to stem at this stage the momentum jihadists believe they have going for themselves.
We are at war with a tribal culture;
Tribalism
Once that is clear a lot becomes simplified.
Islam is at its core tribal. Sharia is tribal.
The Nazis were tribal. Japan's Bushido culture was tribal. And of course the American Indians. Symbolic warfare is common in those societies i.e. attacks on symbols of the enemy strength. The belief that warrior courage can overcome numbers and superior technology.
These kind of enemies are tough because they are very well motivated. They can be defeated.
Once again, people miss the basic truth, if Iraq is the cause Celeb for jihadist then Iraq is where the fighting is taking place. And it is the battle is against our professional armed services personnel, who are trained to deal with it. If Iraq is the battleground then America and American civilians aren't and I can live with that. After all isn't that the point? To take the fight to the enemy and not let the enemy take the fight to you.
Obviously people don't understand the kind of organization required to pull off a 9/11.
It takes time, money, planning and communication. By forcing the jihadist's to become more diffuse we reduce their effectiveness. We might not know who they are as individuals, but we are less likely to find out their identities through an act of large scale terrorism because of their lack of resources to engage in such acts.
Large scale operations will be out of their reach as diffuse units of a few individuals. Effectively a cell has to reach a "critical mass" to inflict damage on us, but they become visible to us by doing so.
Data mining is a science based identifying patterns of connectivity in seemingly random communications. Common nodes of communication are identified and further investigation is planned based on what is found.
The "home grown" terror plots discovered so far in the US and the UK illustrate the point. When they become organized enough the groups try to acquire resources. This makes them stand out from the noise and become vulnerable to intelligence gathering.
The best time to kill weeds is as they emerge from the soil...
Plain language. Great Debate. This is all politics as several bloggers recognize. Iraq is a trap, we didn't fully appreciate the quagmire this place is. This is a gift to the radical Islamist, our invasion and continued presence. The Jihadis need us there to sustain there campaign against the west. Think back to Mogadishu we were described as the "Paper Tiger" by Osama after we left. That comment alone has tied our hands. If we pull out of Iraq, the Jihadis will claim credit and we will suffer embarrassment (national humiliation). If we stay the situation will never get better for us or the Iraqi's in general but it is not about the Iraqi citizens. Our presence there will continue to perpetuate additional Jihadi activities. We screwed the pooch on this one. Consider this if the Jihadis were smart they would lay low and allow a puppet democracy to exist, that is until we pull out. They could re-arm, resupply their arsenals and wait until we are completely withdrawn. Finally, they would be able to unleash true terror on the shallow, unsustainable Iraqi government. That want happen the Jihadis want to keep us engaged. I was wrong this is not political this is common sense. No country wants to be occupied by a foreign power. No people will tolerate this, especially in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, or the Med. Everything is a smoke screen, the Brits tried to colonialize this lot Iraq, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, etc..... and failed. It was not because the Brits were inept, it was because this is an unruly bunch. Hell we would revolt if someone tried to occupy a US state.
At the end of the day, both sides are playing politics with us. They are all full of crap. We citizens are going to suffer from this BS. As we go forward there will continue to be tit for tat by both parties. Truthfully, we are no more secure after all the commissions and patriot acts as were before 9-11. There are still colossal Intelligence failures, threats and threat indicators are not being fully exploitated. Is anyone fed up with all rhetoric on security. Security is not the only issue affecting this country. I admit it is a high priority but we are being shit on in other areas, that don't have a thing to do with terror. Terror is real but politically it is being used as buzz word to try and scare the crap out of everyone so they will forget about other real issues. Vote for us we are strong on security, BS. Pissed off
When I went to highlight the text in the released PDF, to copy it into Word, I noticed something interesting in the space before a “quote” that some in the Rightwing media are quoting. This does not appear anywhere else in the document.
I was wondering if the quote in question was ‘inserted’ and if the wording of the NIE was subtly changed.
Wasn’t the October 2002 NIE also slightly modified when it was declassified?
Saw your blog on CNN. Obviously I will become a frequent visitor of this page.
But, why wasn't this in the decalssified NIE?
"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
Probably because people would have a hard time noticing the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic
Why is it the left gets so mad when full disclosure of ANY partial release (leaks) of information are made? They are pathetic.
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 problem is Bush and his Advisor may be making the argument, but to whom are they arguing and what are they doing about it? If we need a million men in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have them. We just need to train and pay them and treat this like a real war. So if Bush is a "war president" be a war president!
Don't you people get the bigger, more significant point of the leaked NIE assertions ...that our invasion of Iraq, that "our" (really the g-dub admin's) attitude toward and approach to the islamist terrorist threat, which is very real) was and is ALL WRONG?
Yes, NOW victory has become critical in Iraq... but one of the crucial points of the NIE is that this john-wayne-simple-minded-made-for-tv approach is anachronistic and has made the terrorist problem worse, no matter how many AQ leaders we kill. (We still shd kill all the terrorist leaders we can - it's just not the ... 'final solution'...).
Yes, we need to win in Iraq, NOW that we've made it the centerpiece of terrorist recruiting strategies... but if you think the NIE illustrates anything about the GWB admin's approach to terrorism besides its failures... pull your heads out.
Victory in Iraq
I always thought that Conservatives were realists when it came to assessing a situation. This is because if you purport to be the party of strength then you would also have to have the qualities of clear headedness and tough mindedness. It’s amazing though when it comes to recognizing the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq that Conservatives are so self-delusional. I can only attribute this to a desire not to admit their mistakes and move on. If you can’t recognize your mistakes then you will repeat them. Reason enough to vote for change even if change is unknown.
But here is what reality will dictate in Iraq, and the sooner we realize it and change course the the better.
History says that Iraq is not a single country and never will be. Similar to Yugoslavia it has only been held together either by the power of a dictator or an occupying army. Now that that the dictator is gone it is time to set right the historical mistake made by the colonialist British when the created the country after WWI and let it’s people go their separate ways. Keep in mind that the borders of the country were designed to create conflict between the different groups in a classic colonialist strategy of divide and conquer as a way of maintaining political control. Then the occupying army can leave.
This civil war is caused more by the fact that the parties hate each other, not because they hate us. Democracy will never flourish in the region until borders are drawn rationally according to historical ethnic lines. This will create real self-determination for the people and will put an end to the civil war now raging. It is no accident that the only part of the country experiencing relative peace is Kurdistan, which has already unofficially begun this process of separation and self-determination.
In managing this regional reorganization the US must focus on goals that will ensure a lasting peace and thus “victory". This is our bottom line.
Broker a fair distribution of territory and oil wealth among the three new countries of.
Ensure that the Kurds don’t get any big ideas about expanding into what they consider to be greater Kurdistan in neighboring countries Turkey, Syria, and Iran, especially into our putative ally Turkey. The US can offer the Turks a tangible guarantee of our seriousness on this point by negotiating long term basing rights with the Kurds.
Redeploy to Kurdistan Since the Kurds are our natural allies in the region and the most vulnerable minority over the long run it makes sense to redeploy to Kurdistan. This will give us a safe, long-term military foot-hold in the region while at the same time bringing the Kurds under our umbrella, and from this position we can ensure that they don’t get expansionist ideas down the road.
Nurture the Shiites in the south. Once the ethnic conflict is settled focus can shift from fighting to rebuilding and the creation a liberal Shiite Islamic state in the south. This new nation can provide a political alternative for the Shiites (in Iran)and in a lagrger sense Islamists in general. Failure to do this will result in this new country falling into the sphere of influence of the radicals Islamists in Iran.
Maintaining Iraq as a unitary state makes no sense. The experience of our own Civil War should not be the model here. The model should be similar break-ups that have occurred successfully in Europe (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union) and Indonesia (East Timor) since the fall of the Communism. This strategy has the best chance to pacify the region over the long term because it will give all the parties to the conflict what they really want, national self-determination. It will offer an example to the Israelis and Palestinians of bitter ethnic rivals enemies living peacefully side-by-side. This is what Victory in Iraq could look like.
What I don't get is how people say it is more dangerous today than ever.
Than when? September 10, 2001, when Muhammad Atta stayed in a local hotel overnight before flying out of our Portland, Maine airport?
Yeah, the world looked pretty peaceful back then. Unless you were one of the people injured in the WTC blast in 1993.
I keep going back to one thing:
HAVE WE BEEN ATTACKED SINCE THEN?
Obviously not. Not for their lack of trying, mind you... Does anyone remember how close they were to blowing up airplanes over the Atlantic a few months ago?
I'd say this administration, in conjunction with the others, is doing a pretty good job of keeping terrorism knocked down in our own country.
HERE is the next big question for you:
IF Nancy Pelosi and her kind were to want to ENCOURAGE terrorism, WHAT would they do differently from what they are already doing RIGHT NOW?
Consider that. Thanks.
mrs. c: Are you connecting the thwarting of the plane bombs in the UK to the US' current approach to terrorism? I hope not, as the UK approach was exactly what was laughed off by Bush cronies during the '04 election circus: that plot was thwarted through pure law enforcement - not invading countries and 'installing' democracy.
Fighting these extremist whackos will be a long haul, and moronic 1950s hollywood versions of how good triumphs over evil haven't worked and won't. We need to deal with real, imminent threats now, and devise a longer-term strategy that actually accounts for (unlike the current "strategy") the reality of the situation.
Our invasion of Iraq, we can now see, was a tragic and very stupid mistake. We can't afford to pull out, but it's not because it's the 'central line on the war against terrorism' - it's because pulling out would be the greater of 2 evils.
Every moment we live in the fantasy that Iraq is part of "the war against terrorism", the real threat grows.
oh, sorry mrs. c, forgot to answer your last question - re advice for N Pelosi, or anyone else about how to encourage terrorism more than she has - here's my answer:
Invade a muslim country that is no threat to the US; completely botch the occupation; fail to prepare for the imminent insurgency, and demonstrate to the terrorists that, no matter how many resources you throw at the problem, your sheer ineptitude dooms you to fail.
Keep up the good worK!!! I bet Mat Lauer will be all over this on the Today Show tommorrw! NOT!!!!
What's really funny/disgusting to me is, on the ABC stations that carry Rush and Sean, who expose the liberal lies and selective leaks in the NIE story, their "ABC news" on the hour STILL gives only the selective, liberal-biased parts of the news story! They STILL are ignoring the parts of the declassified document that are positive toward Bush!
Don't they know yet that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE PDF that was declassified so we KNOW THEY ARE LYING!?
I guess ABC and the rest of the MSM are really beyond hope and not salvageable.
Too funny
Every moment we live in the fantasy that Iraq is part of "the war against terrorism", the real threat grows.
7:43 PM
***********************************
Every moment that the Left insists that Iraq is NOT part of the general war they only prove again and again their incompetance.
The other side thinks it is an important battlefield and that they are losing there. Zarqawi's manifestos made that clear.
This is not a War on Terrorism, it is a War against Jihadist Islmofacsim.
WHERE exactly do they want us to fight, and did they really want to leave Iraq untouched as a sanctuary base for the Jihadists?
Buzzinator said...
Once again, people miss the basic truth, if Iraq is the cause Celeb for jihadist then Iraq is where the fighting is taking place.
You are only partially right. You see jihadists are not only fighting us in Iraq, but are also exporting the training and experience to Afghanistan and other parts of the muslim world. In time, new organizations and leaders will emerge with experience battling the American army in Iraq. That means, that just as we have adapted to the enemy, they will adapt to us and adjust their tactics accordingly.
The "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them in our own country" meme is one of the biggest fallacies in this current war. Jihadists will fight us in Iraq, in Afghanistan yes, but that does not mean that they will not plan more terrorist acts against us within our own country. That theory would only hold true if there were a finite number of jihadists we were fighting and all their efforts were concentrated on Iraq. However, the truth is as the NIE itself states that we are creating more jihadists or people who have adopted the jihadist mindset than we are killing, hence when the supply of people fighting us increases the enemy can engage us of many battlefields. They fight us assymmetrically so 20,000 of them can keep our army of 140,000 busy in Iraq, our 15,000 busy in Afghanistan and so on. If there is a pool o f jihadists that is growing that means that they also have others who can plan actions against the US, or western interests as London and Madrid have demonstrated.
Remember, Atta and his hijackers were originally going to fight in Kashmir and Chechnya, it was only when they got in touch with members of al Qaeda that they were diverted to the US. Similarly, and now with a more diffuse al Qaeda organization, the cyber jihadists can encourage people outraged over Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib or whatever other grievance they have against us to carry out operations on American soil and not necessarily go to fight in Iraq.
All of the nay sayers fume at the Iraq regime change. They act as if doing nothing would have been better. Every nut job Islamist killed over there is one more that won't be waging jihad tomorrow. The press continues to wail at the "cost" of the Iraq war yet never consider the cost of their plan, doing nothing. while I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on something else, at the moment Iraq is the epicenter of the jihadist movement. It attracts them like flies to a rotting corpse (their fellow jihadist rotten corpse). You don't have to like Bush, but it's foolish to disagree with the goal of a free and democratic way of life in the middle east. The Arab media is largely to blame for promoting lies, conspiracy theories and anti-americanism, just as matt at the today show is.
How can y'all talk about "selective leaks" when a core finding of the NIE, summary of the who US intelligence system's findings, is clearly that by launching the war in Iraq we have created an entirely new pool of terrorists that was never there before?
Now the question is what to do about that pool, but there's no question (is there?) that going into Iraq was a mistake that has cost billions, killed nearly 3K soldiers and has actually *increased* the number of Islamo-fascists in the world.
I’m sorry to say it, liberals, but to me your posts so far are nothing but sheer cowardice and refined selfishness.
Don’t you liberals get it? We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a peace worth having.
You think the Iraqi people are not happy we liberated them? I think you need a hug >>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0502/gallery.sotu.big/content.1.11.html
How would what the Democrats are doing now be any different than if they were openly supporting our enemies?
Pacifism and appeasement, in the face of unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's peace!
You liberals used to care about atrocities, you used to care about human rights. Apparently you haven’t been moved by the 300,000 mass graves we found in Iraq... http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/joyce_030514.html
I thought you liberals cared about ATROCITIES!! How can you see men shredded, then say you don't back war to liberate Iraqis!? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html Saddam threw people into plastic shredders and fed the remains to fish, Saddam raped wives in front of their familes.
Liberals, what part of tyranny and murder, using WMD on his own people, hiding WMD production from the UN, and consorting with terrorists do you NOT consider a good reason to disarm Saddam?
If you go back to the 14 month national discussion about going to Iraq, you will see many reasons were discussed for the liberation and disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true by events
Libs, you seem to be saying “War is not the answer” ... that depends on what the question is now doesn’t it? War ended slavery, fascism, The Taliban harboring al qaeda, ba’athism, Soviet totalitarianism, but other than that, it has a limited repertoire.
Apparently the liberal’s answer is to have America take no action against barbaric despots who seek America’s destruction.
Saddam and his supporters wished and planned for the death of every man, woman, and child in America, and Osama has declared since 1998 that every American, civilian or military, adult or child, richly deserves to die. And strong linkages between Osama and Saddam have been documented at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Slavery is peace. Tyranny is peace. For that matter, genocide is peace when you get right down to it. Are YOU willing to sit by and do nothing and put up with THAT kind of “peace”?
Rmember: PACIFISM IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION IS SUICIDE.
Liberals, if you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
The historical consequences of your philosophy predicated on the notion of no war at any cost are families flying to the Super Bowl accompanied by three or four trusted slaves and a Europe devoid of a single living Jew.
War has never solved anything except for ending slavary, fascism, and communism, Talibanism, and ba’athism.
It would be nice if there were a way around this. History, not merely my opinion, shows us that there is not.
We must face the hard and bitter truth that good people can walk away from a fight, but when they do, bad people will have the field and we have seen the horrors they can inflict. For example, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Jacques Chirac, Osama bin Laden...
If all you are willing to do is think happy thoughts, then those are the consequences.
If you want justice, and freedom, and safety, and prosperity, then sometimes you have to fight for them.
The liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American people. We were further justified by the David Kay report detailing the WMD and the linkages found between Saddam and al qaeda.
CASE CLOSED ==> Many Osama and Saddam links found <== CASE CLOSED read all about it at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Osama and Saddam links found >> In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.
Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there was an Iraq/al-Qaida link.
Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was.
Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was an Iraq/al-Qaida link. Another liberal lie bites the dust.
Al Qaida ADMITTED they are linked to Iraq terrorists after they bombed Spain! So much for the liberal mantra, "no links between al Qaida and Saddam"!
First time and last time reader here.
Boy talk about cherry picking information. You call yourself a "member of the ""intelligence"" community", but you and your readers sound more like typical Bush apologists.
Strangely, neither you nor the people who read this blog (like they watch Fox news to reinforce their delusions about the world) bothered to READ the part ofthe NIE that was declassified.
Here's a link in case you decide to educate yourself
For the record, here is an example of "spook"-style cherry picking.
From you:
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." (emphasis yours)
In fact this is the the first paragraph of the declassified NIE. The remainder of the paragraph from the declassified NIE: (by the way nice job ending your quote at the semicolon, making it look like that was the whole sentence)
"however, we judge that al Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement-which includes al-Qa'ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells-is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts." (emphasis mine)
The bullet points below this paragraph are even more telling.
That strikes me as pretty bad news, and it sounds to me like the NYT has it right and you have it dead wrong.
Not surprisingly, you did the same thing with the next paragraph.
I have to say, if you were a member of the intelligence community, that explains a lot about the lapses we've heard about since 9/11.
By the way j_calvin, you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and read something other than rightwing trash.
Here's my suggestion for you:
Senate Intelligence Committe Report
Thanks for the post. It just goes to show that a free media is free to lie . . . and frequently does
Wait a minute - how do you know that the NY Times saw the report? After all, they say they didn't see the report (before the rest of us saw it, of course). They were TOLD about it by their sources. If your friend is such the patriot, why doesn't he (or she) release these supposed parts of the report that make the president look good, something apparently the White House couldn't do?
Hey shadowmn, what makes you think I did not read and study the Senate Intelligence Committe [sic] Report before I posted? I did, and they agree with me…some pre-war intelligence turned out to be faulty, but that is not why Bush and America disarmed Saddam and liberated the 25 million people of Iraq. We did it based on the Bush doctrine…in a post 9-11 world, with asymmetric, terrorist warfare, we can’t wait until threats materialize before we protect the American people. We won’t distinguish between the terrorists who killed 3000 of us on 9-11 and their state sponsors.
Besides, the world had given Saddam resolution after resolution after resolution to disarm for a reason, because we all saw a threat. And after September the 11th, it was time to disarm him so the threat wouldn't materialize. Saddam said, “forget it”. He chose defiance. So we in America had a choice. Do we trust the word of a mad man or do we make the decision to defend America? We conservatives will defend America every time!
The Senate Committee also agrees with me and the 9-11 Commission that Saddam was harboring and paying terrorists, and maintaining the capability to continue building WMD once the sanctions were lifted. Thank God Bush and the troops and the American people did not let that happen! Thank you President Bush for making us safer!
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
“We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Byrd: “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that
without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year and future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
Now, shadowmn, I suggest that YOU should take your head out of the liberal sand (or where ever it is you have you head) and read the following:
Who is lying about Iraq? By Norman Podhoretz
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
M.SIMON (9/28-3:35 PM): Great observation and accurate analysis. It seems to me that you have isolated the chief psychological and tactical element around which our military strategy should revolve. Historically, what has been the only sure military answer to defeating tribal foes? Hasn't it been superior staying power combined with superior force and weaponry and tough-minded tactics? Is there any historical record of a tribal aggressor being defeated by a lesser foe than described above? What is the historical record of the appeasement and "understanding" approaches prior to conflict, by the objects of such aggression. Aren't they called "victims"? Any doubt that the extreme Jihadists are just the spearhead of what they plan to be a worldwide assault on the infidel?
Also, a comment on semantics. Isn't it more accurate to say that Islam is tribal religion? And, if Islam can be a religion of peace, why do the "peaceful" Islamists never rise up in mass protest of the horrible loss of life inflicted so far by Jihadists? Why is the death of non-Muslims, and non-Jihadist Muslims treated as if those murdered have little or no value in this world or the world hereafter (Whose world?)? When will we see "peaceful" Muslims disavowing or explaining the context of the words "death to the infidel" in the Koran? When will we see non-Jihadist Muslims explaining how an infidel can know to trust what a Muslim says?
On a related tack, can't a good case be made for the tribal behaviour of liberals? "Your label is your identity." Don't most of the activists proudly wear one of the labels "humanist", "liberal", "anti-capitalist", "progressive" (usually Communist) or "socialist". There are many more splinters, I think. Could their behaviour be classified, in general, when faced with bullies as we are now, as "extreme submission" behaviour? It sure looks like they don't want a fight, doesn't it? (I don't want a fight either, but neither do I want to see my children put "under the sword".)
One last speculation. What happens to a gang (tribe) of bullies in the schoolyard when they lose their leader? Doesn't that functional description give the lie to the statement by mad in the ic (5:13 PM): "The Jihadis need us there to sustain there[sic] campaign against the west."? Isn't that a common misconception? The "Jihadis" don't NEED us, as they are driven by their leaders, but they can definitely USE us, if we let them, for propaganda purposes (see MSM).
AND, THANK YOU, J CALVIN 2005-12:01 PM: You have carefully cited the relevant facts of the development of the Iraq conflict. As you said earlier, to the effect of: "What are the liberals trying to do? We can read the whole thing." And we were there for the whole thing (run-up to the war). (But wait, the liberal will say, you won't understand it until I explain it to you --with different words you'll understand.)
Unfortunately, you will not be well understood, as, when a person forces their mind to think only with shibboleths and "talking points" (mdfld-7:57 PM: "Invade a Muslim country...dooms you to fail")(repeated for any discussion) apparently you may lose the ability to grasp the simple truths, much less any interest in knowing actual pertinent facts such as you have cited. The points you make will not be disputed anywhere, but misdirection will be applied at every opportunity.
Also, there are several telling descriptions, from different commenters, of the following scenario: "...the cyber jihadists can encourage people outraged over Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib or whatever other grievance they have against us to carry out operations on American soil and not necessarily go to fight in Iraq."
posted by NYkrinDC : 7:26 AM.
But we shouldn't be monitoring their communications or phone conversations?
After Mir Aimal Kansi was painstakingly apprehended, legally convicted, and executed by lethal injection for slaughtering CIA employees as they sat in their cars waiting at a traffic light in Langley, Virginia, did the number of terrorists decrease?
After our troops were withdrawn from Somalia following the killing some of our soldiers by Muslim tribal warlords, did the number of terrorists decrease?
After Ramzi Yusef and "The Blind Cleric" Sheik Abdel Rahman were apprehended, legally convicted, and sentenced to life in prison for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993, did the number of terrorists decrease?
After President Clinton ordered the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, reputedly as preventive and retaliatory strikes, in response to the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, did the number of terrorists decrease?
When NATO (including US forces) intervened in Kosovo to protect ethnically Albanian Muslims there from Serbian military actions taken to maintain control of the region, and America temporarily provided homes here for Kosovo refugees, did the number of terrorists decrease?
No, no, no, no, and no. We have negotiated peace settlements, actively protected Muslim interests, legally prosecuted terrorist murderers, jailed and executed its most heinous practitioners, and forced terrorists and their backers either onto the battlefield or into hovels. And, no matter the strategy, new terrorists have always entered the field.
Why? The answer has, time and again, been clearly given, in places like Lebanon, Israel, Northern Ireland, Somalia, Albania and Kosovo, and Chechnya. Those who have supported and employed terrorism want territorial control -- what they disingenuously call "autonomy." Muslims battled Christians for years in the streets of both Beirut and Sarajevo for the same reason: they wanted theocratic control of the territory. Some Palestinians attack Israelis to gain territorial concessions (with the hope of gaining the ultimate concession -- removal of the entire Jewish state). Albania shipped first emigrants and then massive quantities of arms into Kosovo because it hoped to ultimately annex Kosovo. (They have hoped to do the same in portions of Macedonia and Greece, by the way.) The warlords who held (and still hold) Somalia, inducing such squalor among its citizens that we originally dispatched troops on a relief mission, couldn't tolerate our presence there because they feared they would lose control of the populace and thereby the territory.
In short, those Islamofascists who promote terror are a new breed of Imperialist. We have become devils in the eyes of such people because we oppose oppression, insurrectionist invasion, and totalitarianism in any form, and because we support citizen-led democracies and freedom of religion.
MSM "experts" are like geese: they wake up to a new world every 20 seconds. They survey tidbits of news without consideration of historical context or foundation in hard intelligence, and they peck out each item solely for what political expediency they might gain from it at that moment. As a consequence, in this case, they have not only taken a single statistic out of the context of its encompassing report; they've also taken the whole report out of context of both previous NIEs and history itself.
Near the end of World War II, Germany equipped its male children and elderly men with individually launched anti-tank rockets, thereby increasing the number of combatants, but leaving them more "diffuse and loosely organized." As the threat of American invasion of Japan grew, the military trained the general populace to use sticks and other handily-available tools as weapons, vastly increasing the number of combatants, but again keeping them dispersed and without a formal command structure. It was not long after such increases in combatant populations that those nations leaders surrendered and the journey to civil restoration began. We should seek such parallels in history, not ignore them.
The one time in recent history that the number of terrorists could be said to have decreased was when Libya disavowed any further support of terrorism. That was right after we entered Iraq. How soon -- or deceitfully -- we forget.
Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Report Credit History Online Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Internet Credit Reports Online Credit History Web Credit Report
Post a Comment