Note: This Power Line report was posted prior to the release of the NIE report by the Bush Admin. Still, it is quite revealing.
What Else Was In the NIE Report?
Power Line
In my addendum to this post by Paul (linked below), I repeated a point I've made several times before: one of the sinister aspects of leaks of classified information is that they are by nature selective. The leaker has access to lots of material, but he doesn't leak it all: he only leaks what he thinks will best serve his political agenda. The recent leaks of alleged conclusions from the National Intelligence Estimate that was completed last spring is a perfect case in point. Paul and I talked about an article in the Washington Post by a reporter who obviously had not read the report. All she could do was pass on the Democrat leaker's spin. Which, in all likelihood, she was happy to do.
But what does the report really say? In From the Cold, a web site operated by a former intelligence officer with 20 years' experience, has obtained access to portions, at least, of the intelligence agencies' report. If you are interested in this story, you should read it all (link below). Here are a few excerpts:
<<< 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.
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. >>>
On balance, it appears that the NIE supports the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror. Why, then, did the Washington Post and the New York Times report so selectively and misleadingly? In From the Cold wants to know, and we do too:
<<< 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. >>>
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.
powerlineblog.com
powerlineblog.com
formerspook.blogspot.com |
