Tell me where I’m going wrong here:
The New York Times writes a story on leaked information about a NIE report that says the war in Iraq has spread terrorism. On Thursday Bush said people who believe that are “naive and misinformed”. He then releases a few pages of the report to prove his point.
The report says that the war in Iraq is spreading terrorism.
Am I missing some subtle point? After reading the report, I’m just as “naive and misinformed” as I was before I read it because I still believe the war has fucked us further. What am I missing?
Pit or GD? Pit or GD? Pit. . . I check there more.
It offers nothing new for anyone. The only alarming thing is that our intelligence services have nothing to say that can’t already be found on most op-ed pages.
For one thing, it isn’t old news to us, the American people. And for a second thing, why should anyone stop talking about it just because the report came out in April? What, once the report was released to Congress all the problems outlined dissappear like magic?
The question I really have is: What is it in the declassified report does the President think will change people from “naive and misinformed” to “yay for the Iraqi war!”?
Someone leaked a portion of it for political purposes and the NYTimes ran it. Bush released a larger portion of it, also for political purposes. Action and reaction, and back to square one.
He said that. I don’t have a link, but I saw him say it on the news a few days ago. I think Bush was saying that if anyone thinks this report says we should bug out of Iraq fast, then they’re wrong. I think he’s correct on that point, but one still might draw that conclusion onesself from the facts of the report.
I haven’t had a chance to read the whole report yet, so I can’t comment on the OP. It’s unlikely that any report on Iraq is going to make Bush look good, though.
Because he said on Thursday that anyone who thinks the Iraqi War is spreading terrorism is naive and misinformed and that he would release a portion of the report to give them information. Oh wait, I see the problem. The president’s lips moved and I believed him! Talk about being naive.
Really though, what political purpose does releasing that portion of the report serve? I’m just not understanding it at all.
George W. Bush’s super-power to alter the very fabric of reality just by wishing it so! (At least, that’s what George thinks… )
Either that, or it’s the latest iteration of the favored tactic for today’s Republican Party, which is to treat everyone as a moron who will believe whatever they hear.
So does one believe the intelligence agencies whose job it is to collect and analyze the data, or does one believe the President, who must know something his 16 intelligence agencies do not? If Bush is correct, why do we need the intelligence agencies in the first place? We could save billions of dollars and just listen to one man who says he has all the answers.
I’m sorry, but this is a bullshit way to reply to reporting. The report was made months ago, but parts of it only became public now. It’s related to the war, which could hardly be bigger news and is absolutely current. This argument about the war and terrorism has been going on for the last few years. I can’t imagine any way in which anybody working in the news business could think “Intelligence agencies say the war is spreading terrorism? No, that’s not news, our [readers/viewers] wouldn’t be interested.”
Plenty of people have said on this board that the NIE doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t know before, and I’m one of them. (“We” meaning “anybody who was paying attention and can grasp the obvious.”) But an intelligence assessment that confirms what some people had only thought and suspected is still news.
My point was that he did not suggest that it would change anyone’s mind.
It’s defensive.
Portions of the “Key Judgements” were leaked to the NYT/Post – a few sentences selected to make Bush look bad. The NYT/Post then duly published those selected portions, and only those (one presumes it was all the leaker gave them). Bush’s reaction was defensive – declassifying the entire “Key Judgements” portion, parts of which can be construed to make Bush look bad, parts of which can be construed to make Bush look good, most all of which is pretty freaking obvious.
The rest of the NIE – the supporting documentation – cannot be released because that’s the part that explains the sources and methods of intelligence gathering.
Yeah, that was very much my impression as well. Most of it is like, “well, duhhh,” but it’s short and I would encourage everyone bothing to mouth off here to actually read it. It’s only four pages, it’s double spaced, should take about 7 minutes.
-It does state that Iraq is a recruiting ground for terrorists and overall our involvement in Iraq has strengthened and provided training for militant anti-American jihadists.
That the war in Iraq was, on the whole, a mistake is so patently obvious by this point that I think only the most extreme far-right blow hards don’t understand this even if they don’t admit it.
-However, it also states that these jihadists and their cause would be strengthened enormously if America pulled out in a manner that was interpreted as defeat. So, this was another reason not to go to war in the first place, because we might lose it, but now that we’re there, this NIE points out the importance of winning it if at all possible.
In conclusion, yes we’re fucked, yes it’s Bush’s fault, no the Democrats don’t have the answer.
)