September 26, 2006

Dems, NYT, WaPo Willfully Obscure NIE

Of course - the portions that undermine their anti-war causes and Democrat campaigns. The papers, with their Democrat leakers in the Intel community, cherry-pick a 6-month old report to find select quotes, while omitting the rest of the report entirely. Typical, but there's no more memory hole for the rest of the story to be thrown into.

John Hinderaker and a former Intel officer (who has also seen the NIE) begin to fill in the holes in their, ahem, 'coverage' (italicized commentary from the Intel officer at In Form The Cold):

Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the NYT 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.

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.

John Negroponte also chimed in with a similar denial of the NYT coverage this morning. That's some pretty damning evidence...for the NYT and WaPo. It suggests, among other things, that the papers are publishing selective intel leaks they think will be adventageous to Democrats in the upcoming elections, and are willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary (of which there is a great amount). As with all NYT and WaPo 'scoops,' the headlines and a mindless parrotting of the information chosen to run in the articles is repeated ad nauseum on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and NPR throughout the day without context or even a hint of balance. Pravda would be proud.

After Hugh Hewitt's interview with veteran political reporter Thomas Edsall (WaPo), who put the ratio of Democrats vs. Republicans at the paper at roughly 25:1, I think it is safe to say that Democrats who want this information to get out through the news media would have little difficulty finding sympathetic ears in these publications. Couple that with Bill Keller's flat out admission on his July 2 Face the Nation appearence (clip in this Hot Air video) that his paper is not objective in its war coverage, and you have a pretty damning case forming against these two "beacons of objective journalism." They are willfully skewing coverage of the war against it.

Question the timing.

More:
Captain's Quarters
Blue Crab Boulevard
Michelle Malkin (I and II)