NIE IS RELEASED. NYT, LAT, WaPo This SHOULD be the End of Axe Grinding Nameless Sources. You’ve been had again!

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Read the NIE for yourself here .
I’ve read it and if I were you I’d cancel my NYT subscription. This is wilful cognitive dissonance. There’s nothing that says we did the wrong thing in Iraq and EVERYTHING to say that the idea behind going into Iraq is absolutely right on and that there’s no way we can lose this because so much hinges on it.


Here’s analysis here and here and here.

Andy McCarthy highlights the fatwa issued in 1998 by UBL. Gads, no mention of GW. Well…give them time, they’ll manufacture one. But look they mention Clinton. Imagine it, Clinton did relatively little and he was mentioned in a Fatwa. Why do they hate him so much? Turns out: there’s no reason.
Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq. If President Clinton’s Iraq policy was a problem, it was only because he didn’t follow through on it. By threatening to act forcefully but then letting Saddam Hussein and his terror-mongering fester, Clinton played right into al Qaeda’s conviction that America did not have the stomach for a fight and could be attacked with impunity — a conviction that was reinforced when terror attacks were in fact met with paltry, or no, response.

And remember this post of mine. This is why we can’t cut and run.
Here’s the essential ‘graph:

From the Blog last spring:

In the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal today is an interesting piece about what Iran’s version of Dr. Kissinger, Hassan Abbasi, thinks about American will. Find it here.Here’s the essential ‘graph:To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be narrated with the help of the image of “the last helicopter.” It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein’s generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton’s helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
Here’s something you might find interesting; they all (Iran, Al Qaeda) think GW is an aberration and believe the old cut and run strategy will resume once G-4-3 is gone. The author continues in the piece about his research finding among other things that the American leader-elite don’t
support a cut and run strategy. He believes 9/11 changed everything and everyone. Do YOU?

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.

25 thoughts on “NIE IS RELEASED. NYT, LAT, WaPo This SHOULD be the End of Axe Grinding Nameless Sources. You’ve been had again!

  1. Allow Nimlo to post the first comment. Yes, it’s from the other thread on the NIE but…
    ” said…

    Wake up, Lew
    N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.

    25 September, 2006 22:11

  2. LOL, Victoria.

    Wake up, Nimlo
    N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E, N.I.E., N.I.E., N.I.E.

    “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight.”

    “Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq.”

    I’ll leave it there, for now.

    You might want to cancel your suscription to the New York Times, though. Informed sources I have sent me another intelligence estimate leaked to the NYT that they failed to print. Since teh cat’s out of the bag, no problem posting it here;

    TOP SECRET: From the al Qaeda National Intelligence Council
    Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for al Qaeda:
    In the name of Allah, we judge the war in Iraq to be an unmitigated disaster.
    Our reasons for this judgment go beyond a simple listing of the obvious pluses and minuses:
    Obvious Pluses:
    • We have killed more than 2,000 Americans in Iraq.
    • The war has ignited a powerful “anti-war” movement in the US, and in the West generally – as we had predicted it would in our 2002 Estimate entitled “The American and European Left Will Work for Us” – that has weakened Bush and may, perhaps, bring the anti-war Democrats to power in Congress in November.
    • The war has further separated the Great Satan from its European allies.
    • It has aided our recruitment efforts worldwide.
    Obvious Minuses:
    • We have lost our brother Saddam and the invaluable support he gave us during the 1990s.
    • Despite our continuing and highly successful destabilization campaign —may our martyred brother al-Zarquari now enjoy the pleasures of 72 virgins—Iraqis have voted in free elections, put in place a modern constitution, and begun the revival of a vibrant economy. By doing so they have set an appalling example for all other Arab states that we can never erase.
    • The American invasion of Iraq “flipped” Libya, and the treasonous pig Qadaffi has surrendered his nuclear weapons to the Great Satan.
    • The American armed forces – which cannot be defeated on the battlefield by us or by anyone else on earth – are fully deployed throughout the Mideast.
    Our judgment that the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster rests on another logic entirely – one that, praise be to Allah, our allies on the American left fail utterly to grasp. By dragging on for so long, and thus generating so much political controversy, this war has created the opportunity for those among the infidels who truly understand us to find their voice. Today in the American media once-obscure scholars such as Bernard Lewis, James Arlandson, and Andrew Bostom are reaching large and growing audiences with their accurate and deeply insightful analyses of Islam. And while it is one thing when the moron Bush stumbles onto the truth and calls us “Islamofascists”—it is quite another when the infidel leader Benedict visits a minor university in Germany, and there gives a scholarly speech about the nature of Islam that echoes across the globe and focuses worldwide attention on the central role of violence in our faith.
    History teaches that when attacked, the infidel responds slowly – and at first, clumsily. (Consider how many centuries went by before Christianity responded to our conquests in the seventh and eighth centuries with what they are pleased to call the Crusades.) And of all the infidels, none responds more clumsily than the Americans. They are too corrupt – too distracted by their pornography and their shopping – to see clearly or even to think clearly about the threats they face.
    But history also teaches that, given enough time, the Americans always come to understand the true nature of their enemy. And history teaches that once they do, they win.
    We judge that a great shift is now under way within the Great Satan. While the “elites” in Washington continue to fight each other rather than us, the masses are becoming more resolute in their opposition to our jihad. Our agents report that throughout the Great Satan, in places like Birmingham, Alabama, and Raleigh, North Carolina, and Naperville, Illinois, and Fargo, North Dakota – and even in the outlying districts of New York itself – ordinary, working Americans are starting to wake up to who we truly are and what we mean to do. The people are moving ahead of their corrupt politicians.
    For all the mistakes the Americans and their lackeys have made in Iraq – may Allah continue to mislead them – this war has been a disaster because it has triggered the one thing we were most determined to prevent: It has enabled the infidel to understand our true objective – which is, of course, the destruction of Western civilization.
    We report our final judgment with reluctance, but with a high level of confidence: If we cannot defeat the infidel soon, our opportunity for victory will evaporate.

    The al-Qaeda NIE

  3. Not to worry, lefties, the lamestream media ia still spinning and cherry picking portions while ignoring the rest.

    You may go back to sleep and let them think for you some more.

  4. Obviously this Intel Report is completely wrong in that it relies on supposed “intelligence.” In this post 9/11 world, intelligence is worth far less than ideology. Thankfully we have a leader so brave and morally superior as to not rely on intelligence at all. President Bush has no use for intelligence and we are all the better for it.

    The only way to defeat terror is to non in agreement with everything President Bush says and do it regardless of supposed logic or facts or truth. Paying attention to logic will get you killed. The only way to save yourself is to obey without question.

    Obey or die. It really is that simple.

  5. Shame on The Oregonian. They reported about the three Oregon Republican legislators and their Maui trip paid by beer and wine distributors. The O also repeated the story of Saxton lying about his residence. Newspapers are troublesom and must be stopped. To paraphrase George Bush, suppressing the truth is hard work.

  6. The real scandal is that the NIE was classified at all. This is the best judgment of the 16 intelligence units of the US government. Even senators and congressmen had been denied access to it by the secrecy-obsessed Bush administration. How can our democratic system work if the legislature cannot get access to such key documents? And, why shouldn’t the whole public have seen this estimate? Doesn’t terrorism affect us all?

  7. Lew, for the umpteenth time you miss the point.Indeed, N.I.E says hopefully that defeating the terrorists in Iraq would have a good effect in discouraging the movement worldwide.

    But the NIE does not in fact urge “staying the course” as Bush and others imply. It says that the Salafi Jihadis in Iraq should ideally be defeated. Bush is NOT defeating them with his current policies. The Pentagon’s polling has revealed that between 2003 and summer 2006 the percentage of Sunni Arabs in Iraq who support attacks on US forces has gone from 14 percent to 70 percent. Bush’s policies are making things worse, not better. There is no early prospect that his imposition of search and destroy tactics on 5 million Sunni Arabs will reduce the amount of terrorism.

  8. Wow. The local lobbyist story makes an appearance in a stream about the NIE.
    I realize you’re trying to avoid the truth here and mistakes have been made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but on balance we’re winning and doing the right thing. Have you read the NIE?
    The time is now to choose up sides. I hope you choose the United States and Western Civilization to root for.



  10. But the NIE does not in fact urge “staying the course” as Bush and others imply.

    “Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq.”

    Nope, it doesn’t “in fact” state “stay the course!”

    Incidentally, as cute as “stay the course” is, over “cut and run,” it actually is more accurately expressed as “complete the mission!

    I can just imagine modern Democrat urging Patton to not waste his time hurrying to Bastogne to repel the Germans during the “Battle of the Bulge.” After all, “staying the course” then only turned what appeared as a hopeless situation into an Allied Victory.

    God, how hte leftist must hate that word, VICTORY!! Or, is only an American Victory you all hate?

  11. With the US intelligence community agreed that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made the United States less safe from terrorist threats, President George W Bush appears to be facing a growing revolt among top military commanders who say their ground forces are stretched close to breaking point.

    According to Monday’s Los Angeles Times, the US Army’s top officer, General Peter Schoomaker, has called for a nearly 50% increase in spending, to nearly US$140 billion, in 2008 to cope with the situation in Iraq and maintain minimal readiness for emergencies.

    To convey his seriousness, Schoomaker reportedly withheld the army’s scheduled budget request last month in what the Times called an “unprecedented … protest” against previous rejections by the White House of funding increases.

    And this week, several retired senior military leaders told Senate Democrats that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should go, arguing that he had mishandled the war in Iraq. The former soldiers claimed that Rumsfeld had ignored advice for more troops, failed to make a post-invasion plan or equip troops properly, and hid information from the public.

  12. Complete the Mission? What is the current definition of the mission in Iraq? It has changed, been accomplished and mutated.

    I thought it was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

    I did not think it involved destroying the Iraq army and attempting to build another one, opening the borders to terrorists or refereeing a civil war.

    Patton had a defined mission. What is ours in Iraq?

  13. several retired senior military leaders told Senate Democrats that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should go


    Several? Try 3

    Months ago, you had six retired Generals. Now, you are down to 2 retired Generals and 1 retired Colonel.

    Seems to me your “Rummy has to go” panel shrunk, LOL.

  14. Retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton,

    Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom

    Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni,

    Retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold,

    Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor

    Maj. Gen. John Batiste

  15. Loyal, that was the six from a few months ago. The latest round is:

    Retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste

    Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

    Retired Col. Paul X. Hammes.

    Those that expressed support for Rumsfeld during the last phase were:

    1. Richard Myers, former chairman of the joint chiefs.

    2. Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq;

    3. Michael DeLong, who was the No. 2 officer at Central Command.

    4. John Crosby

    5. Thomas McInerney

    6. Burton Moore

    7. Paul Vallely.

    Keep throwing your skyhook up in the air, loyal. It may hook on to something you can hang onto one day.

  16. loyal,

    How many of your Generals resigned their commisions and for goed their retirement pension to speak out?

    Answer. Zero (0).

    Their creditibility. Same as previous answer. Zero (0).

  17. Loyal, lefty generals opposing Rumsfeld are no big deal. As much as you might like it to be, no one really pays much more attantion to them than they do those that support Rummy. Regardless, it is solely up to the President as to whether he goes or not. Fat chance of that in the next two years.

    Time to move on to more important matters. Currently, I am researching Carters secret CIA activity in Afghanistan months before the Soviet invasion which, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Advisor was designed to draw the Soviet Union into a quagmire war.

    Unfortunatley, they also supported the Mujahadeen, which was the predeccessor to the Taliban, which protected Bin Laden.

    I’d like to see some leaked NIEs from the Carter era which seems to be when the modern terrorist movement started. If nothing else, I’d appreciate seeing hearings on just what actions were taken by Carter that stirred up so many terrorists.

    Said Brzezinski when questioned about if he regretted it: “What is most important from the point of view of the history of the world? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? A few excited Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and end of the cold war?”

    I’ll let you know what more I discover as I keep digging.

  18. On page 36 of the new edition of NewsMax (with Bill O’Reilly on the cover) is a concept of the NYTimes had covered WWII like it has covered the war on terror. This should be required reading for every thinking American.

  19. moderate, how well do you feel WW2 would have turned out had FDR and Truman faced the constant and every day opposition of every move they tried to take to reach victory?

    Something tells me it wouldn’t have turned out as well as it did.

  20. Lew:
    Perhaps a more appropriate and cogent question is this: What would have been the American public’s response if Roosevelt had continually sugar-coated the costs and difficulties of the war. Early on Roosevelt wrote to Stalin, announcing his intentions to open a second front in Europe during 1942. Stalin, whose USSR was fighting for its life, was very bitter when this second front in Europe was substantially delayed.

    Bush sold the American public on the idea of a quick war, in which the Iraqis would greet us as the great liberators saving them from Saddam. Now, more than three years later, violence seems to be increasing, Iraqis regard us the occuppying foreign Army, and the disclosures from the NIE suggest that Bush has not levelled with the American people about how bad the situation in Iraq is.

Comments are closed.