..oh, oh... and this one... Dim's this is your wake up call...
LEAKERS AND LIARS
September 28, 2006 -- President Bush, by releasing a de- classified version of that controver sial intelligence report on terrorism and the Iraq campaign, has put the lie to claims that even his own spies say toppling Saddam Hussein was a bad idea.
Yes, the report says that the war in Iraq is one of four factors that have energized the jihadists.
But it also maintains that the greatest threat to America and the West will come if the insurgents are seen to have won in Iraq - and that the way to prevent that is to defeat them, not to follow the Democrats' cut-and-run formula.
"Perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," the report notes, adding: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Repeat: Showing the terrorists that America will stay the course until they are defeated will dissuade others from joining the jihadist movement.
What else, besides military power, can dissuade the terrorists?
"Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim-majority nations would alleviate . . . [some] grievances jihadists exploit," says the report.
"Over time, such progress, together with sustained . . . programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al Qaeda, could erode support for the jihadists."
One more time: More responsive political systems, combined with increased pressure on al Qaeda.
Which pretty well sums up President Bush's policy of encouraging democracy in the Muslim world.
Indeed, the report says, "the jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution . . . is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."
The Bush administration has combined that approach with targeting of al Qaeda's operational ability. And the NIE also concludes that U.S.-led efforts "have seriously damaged the leadership of al Qaeda and disrupted its operations."
Now, none of this was apparent in the weekend reporting on the intelligence survey found in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
Of course not.
There are at least two possible reasons for this:
* The leakers cherry-picked the report, intending to undermine the administration's war policies, and the reporters bit - hook, line and sinker.
* Or the reporters - and editors - themselves collaborated in disseminating deliberately deceptive "news."
Either way, the original newspaper stories amounted to distribution of propaganda - witting or otherwise - that materially aided the cause of the enemy in time of war.
And somebody needs to be held to account for that.
Yes, the situation in Iraq has emboldened the terrorists.
But, as the president noted Tuesday, there were no American troops in Iraq long before 9/11 - when al Qaeda first began targeting the United States.
"If we weren't in Iraq [today]," he said, "they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their ambitions."
To suggest otherwise, Bush rightly said, is just plain naive.
Actually, it's worse than naive - it's dangerous: Leading Democrats are playing politics with the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. By undermining U.S. policy there, they are emboldening the very terrorist movement they say they hope to defeat.
The Democrats - and their newsroom allies - thought the NIE would prove to be their smoking gun. But if Americans actually take the time to read the report, it will be seen for what it is.
Nothing of the sort.
LEAKERS AND LIARS
September 28, 2006 -- President Bush, by releasing a de- classified version of that controver sial intelligence report on terrorism and the Iraq campaign, has put the lie to claims that even his own spies say toppling Saddam Hussein was a bad idea.
Yes, the report says that the war in Iraq is one of four factors that have energized the jihadists.
But it also maintains that the greatest threat to America and the West will come if the insurgents are seen to have won in Iraq - and that the way to prevent that is to defeat them, not to follow the Democrats' cut-and-run formula.
"Perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," the report notes, adding: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Repeat: Showing the terrorists that America will stay the course until they are defeated will dissuade others from joining the jihadist movement.
What else, besides military power, can dissuade the terrorists?
"Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim-majority nations would alleviate . . . [some] grievances jihadists exploit," says the report.
"Over time, such progress, together with sustained . . . programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al Qaeda, could erode support for the jihadists."
One more time: More responsive political systems, combined with increased pressure on al Qaeda.
Which pretty well sums up President Bush's policy of encouraging democracy in the Muslim world.
Indeed, the report says, "the jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution . . . is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."
The Bush administration has combined that approach with targeting of al Qaeda's operational ability. And the NIE also concludes that U.S.-led efforts "have seriously damaged the leadership of al Qaeda and disrupted its operations."
Now, none of this was apparent in the weekend reporting on the intelligence survey found in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.
Of course not.
There are at least two possible reasons for this:
* The leakers cherry-picked the report, intending to undermine the administration's war policies, and the reporters bit - hook, line and sinker.
* Or the reporters - and editors - themselves collaborated in disseminating deliberately deceptive "news."
Either way, the original newspaper stories amounted to distribution of propaganda - witting or otherwise - that materially aided the cause of the enemy in time of war.
And somebody needs to be held to account for that.
Yes, the situation in Iraq has emboldened the terrorists.
But, as the president noted Tuesday, there were no American troops in Iraq long before 9/11 - when al Qaeda first began targeting the United States.
"If we weren't in Iraq [today]," he said, "they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their ambitions."
To suggest otherwise, Bush rightly said, is just plain naive.
Actually, it's worse than naive - it's dangerous: Leading Democrats are playing politics with the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. By undermining U.S. policy there, they are emboldening the very terrorist movement they say they hope to defeat.
The Democrats - and their newsroom allies - thought the NIE would prove to be their smoking gun. But if Americans actually take the time to read the report, it will be seen for what it is.
Nothing of the sort.
