I'm going to start this fun ride with Sunday’s New York Times story on the NIE estimate that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism here:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — 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.
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.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.
Sounds pretty bleak and scary--doesn't it? The U.S. is in trouble with creating a whole new network of Islamic radicalism due to the Bush administration’s war in Iraq. Can it get worst? How about this September 21, 2006 Los Angeles Times story about the House Intelligence Committee's report on terrorism and the Iraq war:
WASHINGTON — The House Intelligence Committee warned in a report Wednesday that the terrorist danger facing the United States was "more alarming than the threat that existed prior to Sept. 11, 2001," prompting criticism from Democrats that the Republican-dominated panel was seeking to alarm voters in advance of the midterm elections.
The report was approved by the committee on a party-line vote, with Democrats objecting to its tone and contents in strongly worded minority opinions.
Republicans have sought to focus attention on national security issues, believing voters will prefer the GOP approach. President Bush has made a series of high-profile speeches in recent weeks defending the war in Iraq and repeatedly mentioning Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
The House report augments that effort, describing Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. Even so, there are portions that appear to undercut White House claims that counter-terrorism efforts over the last five years have made the U.S. significantly safer.
The House report augments that effort, describing Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. Even so, there are portions that appear to undercut White House claims that counter-terrorism efforts over the last five years have made the U.S. significantly safer.
Bush and others in the administration have frequently said, for example, that up to half of Al Qaeda's command structure had been captured or killed through aggressive operations by the CIA and other agencies.
But the House report is less sanguine: "Although coalition forces have killed or captured several of Al Qaeda's top leaders, these vacancies have been filled by a new generation of extremists. Most of these new leaders have obscure backgrounds, and the intelligence community lacks knowledge about their particular methods of operating."
The document also warned that Iraq has become a new breeding ground for terrorists who may target other countries. "Fighters who leave Iraq will have acquired first-hand experience in urban warfare," the report said. "Upon returning home, they have the potential to use their knowledge, credibility and popularity to recruit and train younger generations to fight against the United States and our allies."
The committee acknowledged that all of the information in the report was "drawn only from publicly available sources" so that it could be released without concern for classification issues.
Guess what--we're losing the Great War on Terrorism! We’re in really deep doo-doo here--why, even Donald Rumsfeld is not safe, with three top American military leaders calling for his resignation in a Democratic Party congressional committee hearing, due to his involvement in the disaster of Iraq. The terrorists are coming to attack and kill us--these intelligence reports even say so! We're doomed!
But don't fear--all is not lost! For the chief intelligence czar John Negroponte is here to save the day! This is also from The Washington Post:
The conclusion of U.S. intelligence analysts that the Iraq war has increased the threat from terrorism is only "a fraction of judgments" in a newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said yesterday.
"What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat," Negroponte said in a statement. "The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive, and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."
This NIE conclusion represents only "a fraction of the judgments" in the full NIE report? So John, if you claim that the conclusions are only a fraction of the judgments in this NIE report, then why not publish the entire report so we can see the full conclusions and the majority of the judgments that say we're winning the GWOT, and in Iraq? Show everything so we can make the decisions about the Bush administration’s GWOT, and Iraq, ourselves. And by the way John, could you also please name some of those "successes against the global jihadist threat?
Negroponte-spin not working! Must find new Neocon hero—two neocon heros! How about Republican Spin-Machine is here to save the day! I found this off of another Washington Post story titled, Democrats Focus on Terrorism Report in Attacks on Bush:
Frances Fragos Townsend, the top White House adviser on terrorism, said one paragraph in nine pages of "key judgments" from the intelligence community discusses how "the war in Iraq is being used by extremists to spread the global extremist message," but added, "It does not say it has made us less safe." The "one thing that would make us less safe" is an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, she added.
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noted that there have been no attacks on the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and he described the new reports as "selective leaks put out within five or six weeks of the election designed to help the Democrats get control of the Congress."
So, the Democrats are now considered "extremists" by White House advisor Frances Fragos Townsend, because they are using the NIE report to criticize the Bush administration's war in Iraq, thus spreading "the global extremist message" that is making America less safe. So Ms. Townsend, if you're connecting the Democrats to extremists, spreading a "global extremist message," does that also mean you're connecting the Democrats to the terrorists? Are the Democrats aiding the terrorists? Is that what you're saying?
But Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell makes an even more outragious statement--There have been no attacks on the United States since September 11th. Um, Mitch--did it ever occur to you that the al Qaeda terrorists have not attacked the U.S. mainland because of the logistical difficulties in setting up and carrying out such attacks in this post-9/11 world? Besides, why should al Qaeda even attack the U.S. mainland again--not when they can head over to Iraq and attack the U.S. occupation troops, with shorter supply lines and better communications between al Qaeda terror cells?
Must bring out big PR-spin-meister guns! Must go to the prima donna White House press secretary Tony Snow, and hear what he had to say about the NIE report:
Spokesman Tony Snow sought to challenge news reports on Sunday about the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and terrorism, which represents the comprehensive consensus findings of the 16 US intelligence agencies.
[The NIE report] "notes that should jihadists be perceived to have failed in Iraq, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight," the spokesman said as US
President George W. Bush traveled here for a political fundraiser.
Bush has been saying that the war made Americans safer as he campaigns ahead of November 7 legislative elections, in which the unpopular war in Iraq may cost his Republican party control of one or both houses of the US Congress.
The Washington Post said the report described the Iraq conflict as the primary recruiting vehicle for violent Islamic extremists.
While the US has seriously damaged Al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to carry out major operations since the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, it noted, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.
"One thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse," said Snow, who also insisted that the new reports "contain nothing that the president hasn't said."
Talk about parsing the language here. The NIE report doesn't say that the war in Iraq has made terrorism worse--Tony Snow is now parsing the language to say that Bush's war in Iraq has forced the terrorists to fight in Iraq, rather than here in the US--thus claiming that the Bush administration has protected the U.S. homeland since there have been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. since September 11th. So in fact according to Tony Snow's view, the war in Iraq has actually made America safer since we're fighting those al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Didn’t Negroponte just criticized Democratic opponents for parsing the language of the NIE report by saying such opponents are taking only "a fraction of judgments” in the report to criticize the Bush administration? Didn’t both Francess Townsend and Mitch McConnell parse the NIE report—Townsend saying that Democratic Party criticisms are also contributing to the rise of “the global extremist message—thus linking Democratic criticisms of the Bush administration with the rise of Islamic radicalism? Didn’t Mitch McConnell parse the NIE report by claiming the Bush administration protected the U.S. from terror attacks because there have been no al Qaeda terror attacks since 9/11? Why am I seeing twirly-swirly circles all around me?
Look at me--I'm spinning! Weeeeeeee!
No comments:
Post a Comment