NIE - Less safe because of Iraq.
I assume everyone's seen this story, NYTimes version, WaPo version, that the Iraq war has made the US less safe by serving as the primary motivational and recruiting factor for the swelling global jihadi movement. If you haven't read it, go read it now. It's important.
Both the NYTimes and WaPo compare this NIE which has been out since April with administration statements made over the last month. (NYTimes)
(WaPo)
Sadly, I think that's the real story in this. Pretty much everyone who hasn't drunk the administration's koolaid (Black Cherry, by the way) has already come to the conclusion that this NIE's underlying premise is true.
So, the real question is, why has the White House been telling a different story for these past months when they had in their hands the top, conclusive, official finding of all the US's intelligence agencies disputing what they were saying?
(We know why, but I think they should have to explain. This isn't some piffling Bin Laden determined to strike US PDB, this is a major document that undermines Bush's entire strategy in the war on terror and his current justification for the war in Iraq.)
Don't miss the press conference Monday.
Also, If this NIE was produced in April, why is the story coming now? Is this another "NYTimes held the story at administration request?" Was there interaction? What's the sequence and timing?
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Both the NYTimes and WaPo compare this NIE which has been out since April with administration statements made over the last month. (NYTimes)
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
(WaPo)
The NIE, whose contents were first reported by the New York Times, joins public statements by senior intelligence officials in describing a different kind of conflict than the one outlined over the past month by President Bush in a series of speeches marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Sadly, I think that's the real story in this. Pretty much everyone who hasn't drunk the administration's koolaid (Black Cherry, by the way) has already come to the conclusion that this NIE's underlying premise is true.
So, the real question is, why has the White House been telling a different story for these past months when they had in their hands the top, conclusive, official finding of all the US's intelligence agencies disputing what they were saying?
(We know why, but I think they should have to explain. This isn't some piffling Bin Laden determined to strike US PDB, this is a major document that undermines Bush's entire strategy in the war on terror and his current justification for the war in Iraq.)
Don't miss the press conference Monday.
Also, If this NIE was produced in April, why is the story coming now? Is this another "NYTimes held the story at administration request?" Was there interaction? What's the sequence and timing?
2 Comments:
I'll say this: the timing is NOT very good for the WH. It puts the Iraq story back in the news (finally - apparently Iraq can only make the lead story if an iraqi woman has a fetus cut out of her), it reminds people that this was a war of choice that didn't have to be fought, has been fought badly and has made the U.S less safe in the WoT.
As you say, mike, the gaggle should be interesting on Monday.
By Reality-Based Educator, at 10:54 PM
I find the timing of this story very interesting. The NYTimes chose to go with it on Sunday morning, forcing it onto the Sunday morning shows (and seeding it into the early week.)
And I don't know how the admin will respond to questions. They will probably fall back on the "going forward" argument.
On the other hand, they may just ignore the reality of the question and respond stridently that Iraq is NOW the central front. "The question is what do we do now?"
I'll be really curious if they actually try to dispute an NIE.
By mikevotes, at 8:10 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home