PrintJuly 20, 2007
More NY Times NIE LIEs
Not surprisingly, the New York Times exploited Tuesday's release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate as yet another opportunity to nourish their "we're less safe because of Iraq" minions. In a Wednesday article entitled 6 Years After 9/11, the Same Threat, which deceitfully categorizes the report as strikingly pessimistic, they unflinchingly declare it proof that [emphasis added throughout]:
"The threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism"
That's quite an amazing assessment on their part, particularly when the only mention of Iraq in the heavily redacted NIS declassified summary is that al-Qa'ida looks to enhance its ability to attack us with the aid of "regional terrorist groups" and that they:
"will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), [their] most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland."
True, there was one additional, far from encouraging, reference to AQI which did forecast a blossoming threat:
"In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa'ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
But, as Ted Gistaro, the U.S. intelligence community's top terrorism expert and NIE principal author, reminded reporters -- most U.S intelligence agencies are of the opinion that:
"the overwhelming amount of AQI resources at present are focused on the conflict in Iraq, and that occupies most of their resources."
Of course, liberal "Bush Lied People Died" point talkers will ignore Gistaro's crucial point, and dismiss the importance of our continued engagement. Just as they will the report's disagreement with their mantra of no connection between AQI and the al-Qa'ida that delivered the horrors of 9/11 to our doorstep. A divergence, incidentally, reinforced by recently captured Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani, who tells an entirely different story. The AQI leader stated that Osama bin Laden's "inner circle wields considerable influence" over his Iraqi terror group, and that al-Qa'ida leaders outside Iraq,
"continue to provide directions, they continue to provide a focus for operations, they continue to flow foreign fighters into Iraq."
But -- quipped the Times article, echoing many misguided war critics -- were it not for the war in Iraq, there would exist no AQI and, therefore, diminished threat to the homeland. Okay -- an arguable position, perhaps, but water under the al-Sarafiya bridge.
On the other hand, if AQI is now al-Qaeda's "most visible and capable affiliate," doesn't that completely belie the Democrats' ridiculous notion that the U.S has no homeland security interests in Iraq? That it's "all about oil?" or merely "a civil war?" Furthermore, wouldn't providing a safe-haven to those sworn to "producing mass casualties" upon our citizenry through our "redeployment" (surrender) only ordain them as a greater threat than they currently pose?
So much for the "fueled by the Iraq war" lie.
That mendacity set the stage for this Times' absurd conclusion and the greatest whopper of all:
"All told, despite the absence of any new attack on American soil since 2001, the conclusion that Al Qaeda ‘will continue to enhance its capabilities' to attack the United States suggests some miscalculation in the administration's basic formula against terrorism: that attacking the jihadists overseas would protect the homeland."
Does it?
Here's but the second paragraph of the NIE The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland's pertinent Key Judgments:
"We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa'ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11."
Let's assume that the "newspaper of record" actually took the time to read the massive 2 page report. To what are we possibly to attribute this egregious shortage of reporting integrity? Is anything less loathsome than a transparent attempt to foment talking-pointable lies upon group-thinking Times believers and, ultimately, their peace-now, pay-later representatives in Washington even worthy of our consideration?
Anything at all?
