Intelligence findings present political obstacle for Republicans

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Intelligence findings present political obstacle for Republicans

By Ron Hutcheson
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15599775.htm
McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - A newly disclosed intelligence assessment that contradicts President Bush's claim that the war in Iraq has made America safer also casts doubt on the Republican campaign strategy for the November elections.

Democrats seized on the intelligence findings Sunday to challenge Republican assertions that Bush and his congressional allies offer the best protection against terrorists. The assessment, the consensus opinion of the entire federal intelligence network, concluded that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic extremism and contributed to the spread of terror cells.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a prepared statement that the intelligence analysis "should be the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."

"Despite what President Bush says," Kennedy said, "the intelligence community has reported the plain truth - the misguided war in Iraq has metastasized and spread terrorism like cancer around the world."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said the analysis is "further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror." She said Bush "should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism."

White House officials declined to discuss the classified intelligence findings, which were disclosed in Sunday editions of The New York Times and The Washington Post. The assessment came in a report known as a National Intelligence Estimate, which reflects the consensus view of 16 government intelligence services, including the CIA.

The newspapers did not offer direct quotations from the report, relying instead on characterizations of the document by unnamed government officials. White House spokesman Peter Watkins suggested that the newspaper accounts did not provide the full story, but he declined to elaborate because the report remains classified.

The classified report was completed in April, but disclosed just six weeks before congressional elections that are likely to hinge on national security issues.

Republican strategists are hoping that voter confidence in Bush's handling of terrorism will help their party retain control of Congress.

"The Bush administration lives or dies, in terms of national security, on the claim that they have indeed made America safer," said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. "This is at the heart of the Republican rationale for continued control of government." He called the report "kryptonite for Superman," referring to the substance that disabled the comic book hero.

But Goldford said the political impact depends on "how skillful the Democrats are in exploiting" the newly disclosed intelligence findings.

"Never underestimate the Republicans' ability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and never underestimate the Democrats' ability to make a sow's ear out of a silk purse," he said.

Polls indicate that Bush's handling of the war on terrorism remains a strong point for Republicans, despite widespread discontent with the war in Iraq. A recent Gallup Poll found that 57 percent of Americans think the war on terrorism is going well.

Bush has played up his strength with a series of recent speeches linking Iraq to the broader war on terrorism and defending his national security record. Watkins, the White House spokesman, echoed the president's previous remarks when asked Sunday to respond to the intelligence assessment.

"Terrorists are determined, and we're taking the fight to them," Watkins said. "We're keeping the pressure on and staying on the offensive, and that's the best way to win the war on terror."

But even some Republicans acknowledged that the intelligence report undermines Bush's claims that his decision to invade Iraq has made America safer. Appearing on CNN, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed that the Iraq war has become "a focal point for inspiring more radical Islam fundamentalism."

---
 
President Bush never argued the war in Iraq would prevent individuals from becoming radicalized and ultimately engage in terrorism. He argued that the war in Iraq has made the United States safer. True, the war has increased anti-U.S. sentiment among radical elements. However, the war does not necessarily equate to a greater chance of terrorism in the U.S., particularly when terrorists seek to attack the west in general. At the heart of terrorism is radical religious believes, including the view that killing Americans and westerners, in general, will guarantee a place in heaven. Regardless, however, it is difficult to assess this question since Muslim extremists don’t simply look at the war in Iraq and say this is the only reason why the U.S. should be attacked. Again, the war is one issue among many that puts the U.S. in danger of being attacked by terrorists. I suspect the U.S., as leader of the west and its alliance with Israel, are two even more poignant reasons why terrorist have such disdain for the U.S. and why the U.S. and Europe, for that matter, are primary targets.
 
The newspapers did not offer direct quotations from the report, relying instead on characterizations of the document by unnamed government officials. White House spokesman Peter Watkins suggested that the newspaper accounts did not provide the full story, but he declined to elaborate because the report remains classified.

So, we haven't actually read the report, it's all according to some partisan government employee...

and look, the NY Times is leaking more classified information!
 
Calabrio said:
So, we haven't actually read the report, it's all according to some partisan government employee...

and look, the NY Times is leaking more classified information!

Simply unbelieveable. Well actually, it is believable.

People hear CIA and think this portion of the government and the Bush administration are one-in-the-same not knowing how far left the CIA has become. Over the 8 years of Clinton, it became infiltrated and infected with liberals. We are now suffering the consequences of the infection where many people within the organization will violate their oath to protect this country by 'leaking' again and again classified information in an attempt to further their political ideology.

And selectively leaking I might add to usually create a false conclusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And look who's always around to lap up the leaks - your friendly neighborhood moonbat troll.
 
Look at this- the President declassified sections of the report that Democrats so eagerly misrepresented and leaked.

http://dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/1e83db99-0996-4d1a-b23b-0a64b836c058

Keep in mind that the National Intelligence Estimate, portions of which were declassified today, as "a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government," begins its "Key Judgments" section this way:

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.

The Times' reporters and editors that ran Sunday's stories were either chumps who got played by anti-Bush leakers, or purposefully deceptive agenda journalists from the anti-Bush fanatics division.

Read all of the declassified sections of the report. Nothing in it supports the Pelosi-Dean-Reid-Murtha Democrats' demand to cut-and-run from Iraq. Just the opposite in fact: "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives."

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter and I debated the NIE on yesterday's program, before it was released. Here's that exchange:

JA: I don't know. We just have fifteen intelligence agencies in a national intelligence estimate which is our most, our most accurate, most generally accepted intelligence document that we have in this country. And the NIE that came out over the weekend, that nobody has denied, says that terrorism has gotten worse as a result...

HH: Have you read the document, Jonathan?

JA: What?

HH: Have you read the document?

JA: Come on, Hugh.

HH: Of course you haven't.

JA: Nobody...

HH: I don't believe the New York Times.

JA: Nobody in government is disputing it, Hugh.

HH: Oh, they are, too. The White House is disputing it, John Cornyn did on this program last hour.

JA: Yeah, they are now. They're trying to get...because they realize that politically, they have a problem. Nobody disputed it.

HH: It's just because it's more...okay. That brings us to the media. The reason...

JA: Why would you do this? You've got to be intellectually honest about this, Hugh.

I hope lefties like Jonathan take the time to let the New York Times' "reporters" know that they don't appreciate being sent out to be embarrassed defending cut-and-paste stories that distort the facts and which, upon revelation of the true facts, support the foreign policy judgments and political positions of the Bush Adminstration.

The democratic Party and its agenda journalist allies are campaigning for retreat from Iraq, a retreat that would be a decisive victory for the jihadists. Thus any vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.

And that is the conclusion supported by the NIE, touted just 48 hours ago by the left as the key document of this political season.
 
Calabrio said:
Look at this- the President declassified sections of the report that Democrats so eagerly misrepresented and leaked.



Why do you blame the 'democrats' as a whole? You make it sound as if it was an official DNC action.
 
Joeychgo said:
Why do you blame the 'democrats' as a whole? You make it sound as if it was an official DNC action.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Democrats seized on the intelligence findings Sunday to challenge Republican assertions that Bush and his congressional allies offer the best protection against terrorists. The assessment, the consensus opinion of the entire federal intelligence network, concluded that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic extremism and contributed to the spread of terror cells.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a prepared statement that the intelligence analysis "should be the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."

"Despite what President Bush says," Kennedy said, "the intelligence community has reported the plain truth - the misguided war in Iraq has metastasized and spread terrorism like cancer around the world."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said the analysis is "further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror." She said Bush "should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism."
 
Joeychgo said:
Why do you blame the 'democrats' as a whole? You make it sound as if it was an official DNC action.

Do you think it was a Republican who leaked the misleading quote (from a classified document) to the NY Times? And was it the Republicans who were running around in the media trying to make this mistruth the pillar of their 2006 campaign over the weekend?

Nancy Pelosi wanted to hold closed door sessions in order to exploit the story:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/D8KCM0E80.html

9-24-06
Rep. Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she agreed that the Iraq war had caused the spread of jihadist ideology. "Every intelligence analyst I speak to confirms that," she said on CNN's "Late Edition.
"And that is why ... the best military commission proposal in the world and even capturing the remaining top al Qaeda leadership isn't going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn't going to change a failed policy in Iraq," she said. "This administration is trying to change the subject. I don't think voters are going to buy that."

So, this was ABSOLUTELY a political attack by Democrats. Democrats within the CIA, in the media, and then within the party.
 
fossten said:
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said the analysis is "further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror." She said Bush "should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism."

Hey beech, maybe you need to read the report before running your mouth like diarrhea.

No wonder the country is so divided. There is so much to dislike about Dims. Never ending.
 
Calabrio said:
Do you think it was a Republican who leaked the misleading quote (from a classified document) to the NY Times? And was it the Republicans who were running around in the media trying to make this mistruth the pillar of their 2006 campaign over the weekend?



Hmmm... What was Scooter Libby involved in again? Hes a republican isnt he?
 
Joeychgo said:
Hmmm... What was Scooter Libby involved in again? Hes a republican isnt he?

Looks like you hit your head when you fell off the turnip truck about 6 months ago. Explains why you've been missing I gather.;)

Scooter was not the leak. Neither was (whispers) Rove. Or Cheney for that matter.

Scooter has the most bogus of charges against him because the prosecutor had to charge someone with something after 2 years and tens of millions of dollars wasted on another Bush witch hunt.
 
Joeychgo said:
Hmmm... What was Scooter Libby involved in again? Hes a republican isnt he?

Perhaps you missed the news, but Scooter Libby didn't leak anything. Nor has he been accused of leaking anything.
 
Joeychgo said:
Hmmm... What was Scooter Libby involved in again? Hes a republican isnt he?

Hibernate a little too long, Rip Van Winkle? :D

A couple of points for you to munch on...

Congress has had this NIE, the entire thing, since April of this year. They sat on it and said nothing for almost 6 months. Then, suddenly, six weeks before the election, Democrats come out harping about ONE SENTENCE from the ENTIRE REPORT, taken out of context, to try to make a political point?

And this from the SAME PEOPLE who accused Bush of cherrypicking the intel that led us to Iraq?

If you don't see the hypocrisy, you're a moonbat.

*owned*
 
Joeychgo said:
Why do you blame the 'democrats' as a whole? You make it sound as if it was an official DNC action.
What I have noticed is that democrats are not sincere about protecting national security, particularly when it comes to leaks of classified information. I don’t see democrats condemning leaking so it would seem that they support it. Apparently, as long as they see an opportunity to undermine President Bush and believe they can gain the upper hand against republicans, it’s fair game to disclose classified information even at the expense of undermining national security.

Take, for example, democratic opposition to the NSA’s data mining program, which has been condemned by democrats as a violation of civil rights, including DNC chairman Howard Dean and Nancy Polosi. After condemning the program, democrats refused to support legislation against it. However, they were certainly more than willing to disclose or demand disclosure of the intricacies of the program and therefore severely undermined President Bush’s efforts to protect the American people. While most Americans don’t mind data mining for war intelligence purposes, the democrats nevertheless saw fit to seize the moment and not only support illegal disclosure of this highly classified program during a time of war, but also, saw fit to disingenuously condemn the program.

Moreover, when Sandy Berger, former National Security Adviser under President Clinton, knowingly removed highly classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration building the democrats defended Berger and downplayed his illegal taking of highly classified documents. In fact, some democrats even had the audacity to criticize an FBI criminal investigation into the matter as nothing more than partisan politics.

The bottom line is that for the most part democrats have shown little concern over leaks and, therefore, don’t be surprised if people get the impression that they support, are somehow directly involved in, or at least encourage illegal disclosure of classified information. Clearly, there is lack of fundamental concern on the part of democrats for national security, which is very disconcerting to say the least.
 
MAC1 said:
What I have noticed is that democrats are not sincere about protecting national security, particularly when it comes to leaks of classified information. I don’t see democrats condemning leaking so it would seem that they support it. Apparently, as long as they see an opportunity to undermine President Bush and believe they can gain the upper hand against republicans, it’s fair game to disclose classified information even at the expense of undermining national security.

Take, for example, democratic opposition to the NSA’s data mining program, which has been condemned by democrats as a violation of civil rights, including DNC chairman Howard Dean and Nancy Polosi. After condemning the program, democrats refused to support legislation against it. However, they were certainly more than willing to disclose or demand disclosure of the intricacies of the program and therefore severely undermined President Bush’s efforts to protect the American people. While most Americans don’t mind data mining for war intelligence purposes, the democrats nevertheless saw fit to seize the moment and not only support illegal disclosure of this highly classified program during a time of war, but also, saw fit to disingenuously condemn the program.

Moreover, when Sandy Berger, former National Security Adviser under President Clinton, knowingly removed highly classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration building the democrats defended Berger and downplayed his illegal taking of highly classified documents. In fact, some democrats even had the audacity to criticize an FBI criminal investigation into the matter as nothing more than partisan politics.

The bottom line is that for the most part democrats have shown little concern over leaks and, therefore, don’t be surprised if people get the impression that they support, are somehow directly involved in, or at least encourage illegal disclosure of classified information. Clearly, there is lack of fundamental concern on the part of democrats for national security, which is very disconcerting to say the least.

Nicely done. I might add one other thing:

When was the last time classified information was leaked to any news outlet reputed to be fair or conservative, like Fox News or any other? Never happened. They only leak to Democrats or lib MSM sources.
 
What's not being pointed out--

THE DEMOCRATS LIED.

Someone leaked a misleading sentence to the MSM.

The Democrats have HAD this report in their hands for months now. They know what is in it. Yet, probably confident that it would remain classified, they responded to the story with LIES!

They want to win office at all costs. The party is embracing American defeat just so that they can win office.

Let's put that into context. Republicans are actually supporting Joe Lieberman, a true-traditional liberal, for the Senate, for the sole reason that he will support the defense of this country. Lieberman votes against the Republicans on every issue except National Security, yet they have rallied behind him...

This story is so disgusting and so telling about the DNC. We all need to take note here. Had Bush not de-classified parts of the report, the DNC would continue to KNOWINGLY lie about the report for political gain, at the cost of the nation's security.
 
What's not being pointed out -

This is the new Democrat and liberal MSM strategy to combat the bloggers, Internet and truth.

Come out with a story. Have all your minions crawl all over it. Make false statement after false statement.

The lefties version of the story hits the 'news' and the 10 second snippets are ingrained upon the masses of sheeple in the Country.

The majority of Americans will retain the NIE story as being that Bush created more terrorists, even though the NIE report doesn't say that.

Places like the NYT, etc. make the initial accusations front page headlines, then later retrack the statement and bury the retraction in the middle of the paper weeks or months later.

This tactic has been going on for 4 years now. Again and again.

Leak, leak, leak. Headline Headline Headline. Then quitely retract, retract, retract.

Sad to say that 50% of Americans have no conscience or they wouldn't support the Democrats, they would throw them out and start over.
 
MonsterMark said:
What's not being pointed out -

This is the new Democrat and liberal MSM strategy to combat the bloggers, Internet and truth.

Come out with a story. Have all your minions crawl all over it. Make false statement after false statement.

The lefties version of the story hits the 'news' and the 10 second snippets are ingrained upon the masses of sheeple in the Country.

The majority of Americans will retain the NIE story as being that Bush created more terrorists, even though the NIE report doesn't say that.

Places like the NYT, etc. make the initial accusations front page headlines, then later retrack the statement and bury the retraction in the middle of the paper weeks or months later.

This tactic has been going on for 4 years now. Again and again.

Leak, leak, leak. Headline Headline Headline. Then quitely retract, retract, retract.

Sad to say that 50% of Americans have no conscience or they wouldn't support the Democrats, they would throw them out and start over.

Brilliant, masterful analysis, Bryan. Really. You should call Limbaugh tomorrow and tell him exactly what you just posted. (800-282-2882)
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top