First, the Economic News
First, the stock market soars closer to an all-time high, housing sales were up last month, unemployment is at 4.7%, and guess what, consumer confidence is up. Egads, those tax cuts still look like a good idea. Guess the politics of doom and gloom are not so hot right now, oh yeah, and gas prices are down, too. So much for the worst economy since the great depression, right? For all of this, I blame Bush (tm).
CherryPicking Intelligence and Massaging the Truth
Remember the whole Iraq had no WMD flap? Remember how the Left and the Dems said that Bush and Cheney cherrypicked intelligence, that they massaged the truth to get reports that said Saddam had weapons when he didnt? An assumption by the left, by the way, that gets disproven every day as more Iraqi documents are declassified and more Iraqi munitions are found and being used as IEDs. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, only this time we have real evidence.
Democrats and the 527 Media should be investigated. They cherrypicked the NIE that THE DEMS HAVE HAD SINCE APRIL. They took one sentence, the dems and the NY Times, and they turned it into a story. As usual, they play word games and take things out of context and it is just telling truth to power, but if they accuse anyone on the Right it is a national conspiracy or treason. Hmmm, what about breaking the law by leaking parts of a classified document? That is what should be investigated. Here is the skinny on the statement the Dems took out of context as well as the rest of the NIE that was released....Here is the sentence that they turned into, see, we told you Bush is creating more terrorists:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives
Dear God, it IS Bush's fault! Right? Wrong. Note, this statement did not say that the Iraq war created a new generation of terrorists, but rather that it is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives. In other words, rather than laying claim to the perceived occupation of just the Holy Land of Saudi, they also are going to cite the occupation of Iraq in their propaganda. But, for the sake of argument, let's take the statement for what the left wants it to mean, that a new generation has taken up arms. OK, so what to do about them? See, here is where the wonders of context comes in. As usual, the Left truly cherrypicks and cuts and pastes. This is Michael Moore mockumentaryism, not true journalism. Let's look at what the rest of the declassified conclusions say:
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.Emphasis is mine...
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.
OK, so here is what we have. We have a conclusion when in full context that supports the President's path and in fact condemns the Murthaism of cut and run!!!!! Also, note that in the full declassified briefing, it talks about how successful that we have been in going after al queda, that we have disrupted it. Remember, however, this report in itself is dated. It was finished in APRIL, when key Democrats and Republicans in the Congress got to see it. Only now, in an attempted September Surprise, does the Left leak out this stuff to try to defray Bush's gains in recent weeks while focusing on terror.
Here are some more snippets from the document that tell the real story, that give the full picture:
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."Where was this in the Times? Or how about this one:
"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."Hmmm, doesn't sound like the precision outfit we had with pre-9/11 al Queda training networks and schools, now, does it? There is also some hope that perhaps that some in the Arab world are awakening to how inhuman the terrorists are:
"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."
And here is the most damning indictment of cut and run Murthaism from the report:
"Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
And what seems to be an endorsement of spreading democracy in the region:
"Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."Isn't that our basic strategy? What is your alternative, Dems?
The Dems have been caught, once again in a trap. I don't know whether someone in the intel community decided to burn the Times and the Dems, or whether it is a Rovian plot, but the Dems have been burned once again. They released a selection, and Bush went and released the whole list of conclusions which when read show without a doubt that we must succeed in Iraq, that we have had successes, and that we must succeed because Iraq HAS become the central front in the war on terror.
Of course, the Dems are whining like stuck pigs that now, so we can jeopardize more key US intel assets (for example, like the data mining programs, the surveillance program, and others) the Administration must release the ENTIRE document, which also goes into detail in terms of methods and practices, some of which are secret and if revealed could endanger lives and US interests. Hmm, you didn't mind selectively leaking one fragment of a sentence, but now folks like Harry Reid are screaming because Bush is revealing the whole context. In order to save face, they have to claim some attempt at malfeasance or conspiracy by the Bush administration. Ted Kennedy takes the cake:
The American people deserve the full story, not those parts of it that the Bush administration selects," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.(hattip to Michelle Malkin, Powerline as well)
Um, Teddy, while we are talking about getting the full story, what about that night at Chappaquiddick, eh? But seriously, this is ludicrous. Someone illegally leaked ONE PIECE, or to paraphrase Sen. Kennedy, "only the parts the LEFT selects" and there is no outcry. Bush legally declassifies the conclusions to refute the accusations based on an ILLEGALLY leaked document and all of a sudden there is some sort of conspiracy. Uh, excuse me? What we have here, obviously are a few scenarios, all of which I think have some element of where this leak came from:
1. A democrat member of Congress leaked it
2. Someone in the intel community with an axe to grind leaked it
3. A combination of the two
Michelle Malkin has some ideas and links in regards to who might be associated with this leak, go check out this article on the suspicious Paul Pillar. Check out Novak's article about the CIA vs. Bush, and some of the other background links.
Whoever leaked this needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
However, this intel estimate has a problem. It is too often written from the lefty perspective of Muslim hatred did not start until we went into Iraq. That is nonsense. Read any of Robert Spencer's books, hell, read Osama's statements of war against the US in the 1990s and you will see that this shows that even our best intel people still have not realized the truth, as Michelle Malkin so clearly posits:
Not a word about the 1,400-year-plus history of Islamic hostility to the West or Islamic imperialism from time immemorial or the Koran-inspired war on infidels--long, long before there was a United States and "pervasive anti-US sentiment."
Remember what I said yesterday?
If our intelligence agencies are laboring under the moonbat illusion that Muslim hatred of the infidel West didn't really start bubbling until the year 2003, we are really in deep, deep doo-doo.
Well, it appears we are, in fact, in deep doo-doo.
Believing PC myths kills, folks. WE need to wake up to reality.
And, by the way, Bubba Lied about Richard Clarke's Book, Too
Remember how Bubba said that he gave the President a comprehensive terror strategy in his blowup at Chris Wallace? Remember that? And, remember how he cited his former Terror czar Richard Clarke as a source to verify all his claims that he, Bill Clinton, did more than anyone else in trying to get and "kill bin Laden?" Well, it didn't take long, but the dominoes of truth are crushing Bubba's lies. First, from Byron York over at National Review Online:
National Review talked to Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, who was then a member of the House, chairing the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chambliss was perplexed. “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times,” Chambliss told NR, “and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wondered, why didn’t anyone mention it?
Sources at the White House were just as baffled. At the time, they were carefully avoiding picking public fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they told NR that the Time report was way off base. “There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda,” one source said flatly. “No new plan.” When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the Time story, the source said simply, “No.”
Finally, Richard Clarke himself debunked the story in a background briefing with reporters. He said he presented two things to the incoming Bush administration: “One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to any new conclusions from ‘98 on.”
A reporter asked: “Were all of those issues part of an alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to — ”
“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. “What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.”
“So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
“There was no new plan.”
“No new strategy? I mean, I mean, I don’t want to get into a semantics — “
“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”
“Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 until December of 2000?”
“Had they evolved? Not appreciably.”
So much for Richard Clarke supporting Clinton's assertions.
