Cherry Picking
For the last four years, the Democrats in the House and Senate have accused the Bush Administration of "cherry picking" the intelligence in order to justify the war with Iraq. Yet on Tuesday the Democrats did the same thing with the NIE data. The breathless headlines told the tale of a resurgent al Qaeda.
"Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.
But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary."
A couple of intellectual heavyweights, John Hinderacker at Powerlineblog and Ralph Peters of the New York Post, shred the cherry picking. First let's here what John has to say.
" But let's see what the NIE really says. This is the opening "key judgment":
We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially alQa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.
Um, yes. I think any American fourth-grader could have told us that. It's a fair paraphrase of what President Bush has said countless times.
Remember all those news stories about how a secret report--still secret, I guess--said that we were now in as much danger of terrorist attack as we were prior to September 11? Well, that's not what the NIE says. It says the opposite, in a paragraph that I have yet to see quoted in a newspaper:
We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.
OK, let's add that up: the intelligence community is saying that our counterterrorism efforts have made us safer than we were before September 11, that a number of terrorist plots have been disrupted, but that al Qaeda is still a threat. And this is supposed to be inconsistent with the position of the Bush administration?"
Peters weighs in with the political side of the equation.
"DEMOCRATS on Capitol Hill have complained for years that the White House "cherry-picks" intelligence. Yesterday, that's exactly what the Dems did themselves with the just-declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.
While preparing for their congressional pajama party Tuesday night (D.C. escort services reportedly had a slow evening), the Dems showed once again that, as wretched as the Bush administration can be, it remains a safer bet in the Age of Terror.
The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda. "
Peters then reminds voters of the potential consequences of the upcoming election.
"In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?
Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.
Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos. "
The current government of Pakistan is a quesy ally. Talk of invasion will be a sure fire way of turning them completely against us.
John wisely reminds us that the NIE is:
"This NIE, like all the others we've seen, is a compendium of conventional wisdom that reveals no apparent secrets. There is nothing in it that would require "intelligence" to divine."
Playing politics with the safety of the American people is not something that either party should be doing. Sadly it is now more important to score cheap political points than it is to keep America safe.
"Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.
But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary."
A couple of intellectual heavyweights, John Hinderacker at Powerlineblog and Ralph Peters of the New York Post, shred the cherry picking. First let's here what John has to say.
" But let's see what the NIE really says. This is the opening "key judgment":
We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially alQa’ida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the Homeland and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.
Um, yes. I think any American fourth-grader could have told us that. It's a fair paraphrase of what President Bush has said countless times.
Remember all those news stories about how a secret report--still secret, I guess--said that we were now in as much danger of terrorist attack as we were prior to September 11? Well, that's not what the NIE says. It says the opposite, in a paragraph that I have yet to see quoted in a newspaper:
We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.
OK, let's add that up: the intelligence community is saying that our counterterrorism efforts have made us safer than we were before September 11, that a number of terrorist plots have been disrupted, but that al Qaeda is still a threat. And this is supposed to be inconsistent with the position of the Bush administration?"
Peters weighs in with the political side of the equation.
"DEMOCRATS on Capitol Hill have complained for years that the White House "cherry-picks" intelligence. Yesterday, that's exactly what the Dems did themselves with the just-declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.
While preparing for their congressional pajama party Tuesday night (D.C. escort services reportedly had a slow evening), the Dems showed once again that, as wretched as the Bush administration can be, it remains a safer bet in the Age of Terror.
The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda. "
Peters then reminds voters of the potential consequences of the upcoming election.
"In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?
Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.
Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.
Oh, and Pakistan's a nuclear power already teetering on the edge of chaos. "
The current government of Pakistan is a quesy ally. Talk of invasion will be a sure fire way of turning them completely against us.
John wisely reminds us that the NIE is:
"This NIE, like all the others we've seen, is a compendium of conventional wisdom that reveals no apparent secrets. There is nothing in it that would require "intelligence" to divine."
Playing politics with the safety of the American people is not something that either party should be doing. Sadly it is now more important to score cheap political points than it is to keep America safe.
Labels: NIE, US Legislature
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home