The NIE and the Chumps at the NYT
Keep in mind that the National Intelligence Estimate, portions of which were declassified today –hailed by the New York Times on Sunday as “a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government”– begins its “Key Judgments” section this way:
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.
The Times’ reporters and editors that ran Sunday’s stories were either chumps who got played by anti-Bush leakers, or purposefully deceptive agenda journalists from the anti-Bush fanatics division.
Read all of the declassified sections of the report. Nothing in it supports the Pelosi-Dean-Reid-Murtha Democrats’ demand to cut-and-run from Iraq. Just the opposite in fact: “If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives.”
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter and I debated the NIE on yesterday’s program, before it was released. Here’s that exchange:
JA: I don’t know. We just have fifteen intelligence agencies in a national intelligence estimate which is our most, our most accurate, most generally accepted intelligence document that we have in this country. And the NIE that came out over the weekend, that nobody has denied, says that terrorism has gotten worse as a result…
HH: Have you read the document, Jonathan?
HH: Have you read the document?
JA: Come on, Hugh.
HH: Of course you haven’t.
HH: I don’t believe the New York Times.
JA: Nobody in government is disputing it, Hugh.
HH: Oh, they are, too. The White House is disputing it, John Cornyn did on this program last hour.
JA: Yeah, they are now. They’re trying to get…because they realize that politically, they have a problem. Nobody disputed it.
HH: It’s just because it’s more…okay. That brings us to the media. The reason…
JA: Why would you do this? You’ve got to be intellectually honest about this, Hugh.
I hope lefties like Jonathan take the time to let the New York Times’ “reporters” know that they don’t appreciate being sent out to be embarrassed defending cut-and-paste stories that distort the facts and which, upon revelation of the true facts, support the foreign policy judgments and political positions of the Bush Adminstration.
The democratic Party and its agenda journalist allies are campaigning for retreat from Iraq, a retreat that would be a decisive victory for the jihadists. Thus any vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
And that is the conclusion supported by the NIE, touted just 48 hours ago by the left as the key document of this political season.