Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Poor summary of Intelligence report

This is a more detailed account of the infamous CIA report saying the we are creating more terrorists because of the Iraq War:

More of What You Won't Read in the NYT

Yesterday, we noted that the MSM (along with their fellow travelers in the intel community), had apparently "cherry-picked" information from a recent National Intelligence Estimate, making their case that the Bush Administration's War on Terror had actually made the problem worse. In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.

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 (comments in italics are mine).

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.

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.
100% lifted from Spook86, at In From The Cold.
Hat tip RightWingNews.

Update: Opinion Journal says declassify the entire report. Or as Fox might say "You (White House) declassify, We (The People) Decide."


At Sat Sep 30, 08:30:00 PM CDT, Blogger PARLANCHEQ said...

I agree that most news outlets hype whatever side of the story suits their purpose. This happens in both the conservative and the liberal media. I tend to only believe half of what I red in the paper, unless of course what I read supports my views, in which case I believe all of it. ;)

No seriously, some of the quotes you highlight seem to ring true. But it’s still only part of the story. What I have a problem with are the increasing casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (both military and civilian). I don’t see how what we are doing over there is set up to lead to a rapid decrease in those causalities. Indeed, it would seem the numbers keep growing and growing. In addition, even with the highly-publicized foiling of a few terrorist attempts, the threat of terrorism still seems very real.

At Thu Oct 05, 02:18:00 AM CDT, Blogger PARLANCHEQ said...

Hoep you show back up in blog land soon because...

Tag, you're it. :)


Post a Comment

<< Home