When I first heard the news about the NIE leak, I thought, "Who would believe the NYT?" They could say that someone leaked the information, but how could we trust them, they are known liars (seems to be a trend this week). And I couldn't believe that the CIA was that stupid. How could they know if we are safer now than if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq? I suspect that it would be safe to conclude that Saddam would have tried to insert himself into the war. He probably would have sent terrorists into Afghanistan and instead of Iraq bringing in more terrorists they would have gone to Afghanistan instead. And then everyone would be crying about how we are losing the war in Afghanistan and why don't we do something about Saddam. I'm not the only one who thinks this:
KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to the remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11. The president mentioned some examples of it.
These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.
They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.
KARZAI: We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.
Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?
Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?
That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated. Extremism, their allies, terrorists and the likes of them.
On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction and occupation by terrorism and misery that they brought to us.
KARZAI: We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older.
We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is, in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, places by the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together, to stop.
The United States, as an ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work, with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.
As we can see President Karzai get's it, why can't our press understand it? And speaking of our press, this was so funny:
QUESTION: Why is that declassification not a political act?
BUSH: Because I want you to read the document so you don't speculate about what it says.
You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document -- or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself...
(LAUGHTER)
... as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody, you know, who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.
It's a -- just I guess it's just Washington -- isn't it? -- where, you know, we, kind of -- there's no such thing as classification anymore, hardly.
And what's really amazing is that the
document says the complete opposite of what the NYT said was in it:
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.
It's very telling how the MSM jumped on this and didn't exercise caution, they allowed their worldview to cloud their judgment. And here is a great example of this,
Hugh Hewitt had
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter on his show the other night and he had this to say about the leak (he was talking about the Clinton interview and brought up the document to strengthen his argument):
JA: Well, you know, I agree. I think that's damning, but I think it's also extremely damning what Clinton said, which is that we have seven times as many troops in Iraq as we do in Afghanistan. And you know, it's now five years, Hugh, and we don't have the guy. And so it seems to me kind of off the point for conservatives in this country to go on this tear about Clinton. It's sort of a distraction from the main point, which is that your guy hasn't gotten him.
HH: Oh, our guy has smashed up al Qaeda, though, and our guy is doing everything he can...
JA: I don't know. We just have fifteen intelligence agencies in a national intelligence estimate which is our most, our most accurate, most generally accepted intelligence document that we have in this country. And the NIE that came out over the weekend, that nobody has denied, says that terrorism has gotten worse as a result...
HH: Have you read the document, Jonathan?
JA: What?
HH: Have you read the document?
JA: Come on, Hugh.
HH: Of course you haven't.
JA: Nobody...
HH: I don't believe the New York Times.
JA: Nobody in government is disputing it, Hugh.
HH: Oh, they are, too. The White House is disputing it, John Cornyn did on this program last hour.
JA: Yeah, they are now. They're trying to get...because they realize that politically, they have a problem. Nobody disputed it.
HH: It's just because it's more...okay. That brings us to the media. The reason...
JA: Why would you do this? You've got to be intellectually honest about this, Hugh.
HH: Let me read you Thomas Edsall and me from last week.
JA: You know that if the shoe's on the other foot, you'd be all over this NIE nightmare.
HH: No, I wouldn't. A) if the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn't find a responsible journalist in my side of the political spectrum who would release national security secrets, or at least partially quote axe grinding operatives who've been embarrassed too many times.
This reporter is a historian as well. He admits later in the interview that the MSM is largely liberal and in this interview he clearly demonstrates this bias. This is why I don't read the MSM news coverage without thinking, "Is this the truth or your interpretation of the truth." There is no such think as objective reporting, our worldview always gets in the way.
And I agree with
Michelle Malken that the CIA shows a lack of understanding of why the terrorists are fighting:
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims--all of which jihadists exploit.
It would be nice if our bureaucrats got it. This war didn't start in this century or the previous century but many, many centuries ago. We better get people in these agencies that understand that because it's crucial for us to understand our enemy.
technorati tags: 
