Less safe, not more - Thoughts on last night's NIE story
In light of the NIE story below (the war in Iraq has made terrorists stronger and terrorist attacks more likely (READ IT!!!!),) a couple quick thoughts.
1) On this day when "the compromise" was the top scheduling story, not one administration official is scheduled on any of the Sunday shows? When was the last time that happened? Almost like they knew the story was coming, eh?
(I really want to know the details of the NYTimes/White House interaction on this story. Did the administration ask them to hold/not print the story? Did the Times tell them they were going to print? I'm really curious.)
2) Somebody needs to ask Bush/Cheney/Lieberman and the rest about their repeated statements (issued after they saw this NIE) that "if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing." (Cheney on Meet the Press - Sept. 10, 2006)
(Interesting: I did a brief google search, and it appears that right around March 21, Bush stopped issuing this type statement and replaced it with the "going forward" version of Iraq defense. Funny, that!)
3) As the NIE specifically cites US detainee policies not only in Abu Ghraib, but also Guantanamo as "stoking the jihadist movement," maybe the questions should be raised again about the administration's insistence on its detainee policies.
4) Wrong on Iraq. Wrong on terror. That should be the Dem message. And I'm not saying that for politics, I am saying that for the security of our nation. This Republican Congress has allowed these poor policies that have bred more terrorism to be enacted without any critique, and America is less safe because of it.
1) On this day when "the compromise" was the top scheduling story, not one administration official is scheduled on any of the Sunday shows? When was the last time that happened? Almost like they knew the story was coming, eh?
(I really want to know the details of the NYTimes/White House interaction on this story. Did the administration ask them to hold/not print the story? Did the Times tell them they were going to print? I'm really curious.)
2) Somebody needs to ask Bush/Cheney/Lieberman and the rest about their repeated statements (issued after they saw this NIE) that "if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing." (Cheney on Meet the Press - Sept. 10, 2006)
(Interesting: I did a brief google search, and it appears that right around March 21, Bush stopped issuing this type statement and replaced it with the "going forward" version of Iraq defense. Funny, that!)
3) As the NIE specifically cites US detainee policies not only in Abu Ghraib, but also Guantanamo as "stoking the jihadist movement," maybe the questions should be raised again about the administration's insistence on its detainee policies.
4) Wrong on Iraq. Wrong on terror. That should be the Dem message. And I'm not saying that for politics, I am saying that for the security of our nation. This Republican Congress has allowed these poor policies that have bred more terrorism to be enacted without any critique, and America is less safe because of it.
posted by mikevotes at
7:47 AM
5 Comments:
"Wrong on Iraq. Wrong on terror." I do long for a Democrat to gain media space and say this sort of thing out loud. I find so little to admire among Democrats these days, and I want to admire them for a principled stand against the arrogant, torture-centric and imperialist Republican neocons.
I'm forced to admire even people like Hugo Chavez and Whatsisname Ahmadinejad, for having located their spines, standing up on their hind legs, and speaking against the killers, creeps and religionists who have somehow wormed their way into positions of power in public life here in the US.
Democrats, stand up. This is not about your careers anymore. It's about human survival.
By
Anonymous, at 11:10 AM
The NIE also said that Iran is at least ten years away from being able to enrich enough uranium to build nuclear weapons. Why do we have these things if the Bushies don't listen? Or, better yet, why do we have the Bush regime when they are too arrogant to listen to the NIE?
By
Lew Scannon, at 11:24 AM
Anonymous, I could not agree with you more. I do think it's coming, though. If your focus is on an election, I think the timing of such a thing is critical because otherwise it loses it's impact.
Lew, The NIE's are just obstacles. Remember that whole "reality based community" line of discussion? The Bush admin is really just glad they're classified.
Again, look at Iraq. The intelligence was an impediment to the Bush admin, so they made up an entire system to produce and promote their own.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:33 AM
This NIE is such a "Duh!" moment. As far back as 4 years ago, administrators of Islamic madrasas and many radical clerics were talking openly about how recruitment to their cause was through the roof. They flippin' love Bush.
And now we have a report to tell us?! I'm stunned. No...really.
By
Anonymous, at 2:43 PM
I agree. That's how I wrote about it last night. The "new" story is that the administration had this in their hands since April and has issued statement after statement contradicting it.
They are telling a completely opposite narrative than their own intel services are providing them, a story because it reinforces what we already knew.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home