The intelligence community that underplayed terrorism throughout the 90s and botched 9-11 is reporting that the terrorists hate us? It seems there are many in the intelligence services who hate Bush and are still leaking classified materials to push their agenda. If Bush can't control them he has little chance to beat the jihaddies.

Robert Port at the Say Anything blog got it exactly right on the so-called intelligence report about terrorist support.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/how_a_political_hit_works/

"How A Political Hit Works
By Rob on September 24, 2006 at 02:56 pm

By now I think we all know what the Republican stance is with regard to the war on terror and the war on Iraq for the upcoming elections. The war in Iraq has made us safer because it took down a terror-sponsoring regime that bred terrorism through its oppression and replaced it with a democracy. This, so far, has been a powerful message especially in light of the fact that the left has no rebuttal for it. They have no plans for the war on terror themselves so they can only seek to deride the President’s plans. They say that Iraq’s a quagmire and that the war there has made us less safe. Unfortunately those arguments ring hollow with the American people who have observed steady, if achingly slow, progress in Iraq since our invasion.

So what can the left do to overwhelm the right’s steadfast support of Iraq and the war on terror? Why, run a political hit that makes it seem as though the war in Iraq has actually made us less safe and that the Democrat talking points were right all along.

It all starts with the New York Times. They talk to a bunch of “government officials” and “outside experts” who won’t put their names to anything they say but will none-the-less allege that a National Intelligence Estimate memo concludes that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists and generally made us all less safe from terrorism. Of course, Times readers won’t get to actually see the memo in question we’ll just have to rely on these unnamed sources and the Times’ own professional objectivity.

If that last statement isn’t enough to give a person pause about buying into this, I don’t know what is.

Regardless, the next step is endless media hype. The claims made in the Times article will be repeated ad nauseum, despite the fact that if this leaked intelligence info had stated that Iraq was having a positive impact in the war on terror it would largely be ignored by these same media types.

The third step is for Democrats to get on board and attack the President over media reporting from journalists who have apparently never seen the memo themselves but are instead relying on statements from unnamed people who aren’t willing to put their names to their words because in talking to the press they are breaking the law.

The fourth step is the media to conclude, after all these other steps, that the leaked information is already having a detrimental impact on Republican political aspirations. Again, despite the fact that the only information we have about this memo comes from unnamed sources interviewed by a publication that clearly has a liberal agenda.

All within about 24 hours. Isn’t that amazing? It is almost like it’s coordinated or something.

I remember another major political story like this breaking in September right before an election. That one had something to do with some forged memos and the President’s military service. Which isn’t, of course, to suggest that I have evidence of fraud in this story we’re hearing about today, I just find it interesting that the media always seems to come up with some major story that meshes perfectly with Democrat talking points right before national elections."

There's a convenient pathway that I have to avoid for a few days each year because it has a gate, and on those days the gate is closed. This is because the path, connecting a road and a foot-bridge, is really private property. If the gate is not closed for a few days each year to reassert a private right to that path, the owner would lose his property.

This might seem silly, but I approve. Rights never asserted are lost.

Unfortunately one of the legacies of the George W. Bush administration is going to be that for most or all of two terms the gate was left open for anyone who wanted to leak and publish important classified information. The result is that everyone seems to do it as though it was a moral and legal right, and the discussion shifts to how damaging the leak is rather than its criminality.

Someone is going to have to reassert the right to shut that darn gate.

Tom,

You think the appropriate response to a report that says the Iraq War has actually increased the threat of terrorism is to...

Smear every intelligence officer who contributed to the report?

No. It's to criticize those who leak the report. I'll note in passing that ... we weren't in Iraq and were "containing" Saddam as the Left wanted ... and got the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the Embassy bombings, the Cole, and of course 9/11.

"More terrorism?" Since when do Muslims need a "reason" to commit terrorism? Theo Van Gogh, the Pope, Salman Rushdie, South Park, Danish Cartoons, it doesn't matter.

The message is the same, Convert or DIE!

Understandable of course. Modern trade and technology destroy Islam, so Muslims have to destroy the modern world and particularly America or see Islam destroyed.

But no, the leak does not even pass the test of elementary rationality. Muslims will try to kill as many of us as possible to make us convert or die, unless deterred by fear. It's that simple.

So we should ignore the considered opinion of America's 16 intelligence services and rely on religious stereotypes to guide our actions, Jim?

monkyboy,

Pantapon Rose at the Volokh Conspiracy had this comment which serves as a apt response to your queston:

"The Post article (which is really just an article on the NYT article) says nothing about the report from the report; it simply relays what unnamed leakers say about the report (who, instead of speaking out when the report was finished in April, decided to leak six weeks before an election). The articles are about what anonymous sources are saying about the report, and there is a near-complete lack of details of what is actually in the report."

Then the administration should either declassify the report or stop claiming that our actions in Iraq are doing anything to stem terrorism, Tom.

They can't have it both ways...

monkyboy,

"... The third step is for Democrats to get on board and attack the President over media reporting from journalists who have apparently never seen the memo themselves but are instead relying on statements from unnamed people who aren’t willing to put their names to their words because in talking to the press they are breaking the law.

The fourth step is the media to conclude, after all these other steps, that the leaked information is already having a detrimental impact on Republican political aspirations. Again, despite the fact that the only information we have about this memo comes from unnamed sources interviewed by a publication that clearly has a liberal agenda.

All within about 24 hours. Isn’t that amazing? It is almost like it’s coordinated or something."

I'm not that concerned about politics, Tom. Bush is about to become a lame duck anyway.

I am concerned about the costly mess we're in in Iraq.

Our military has said they can't defeat the insurgency. If our intelligence agencies say staying in Iraq is actually making terrorism worse...why are we still there?

If the Iraq War is just a campaign tool for the Republicans, we should at least start billing them $100 billion a year to keep it going.

I think everyone here would be interested in seeing this 911 movie and after watching it tell me what you think about the Republicans it is ranked number 34 on Google top 100 list and played on the history channel last month. Loose Change 911 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

I think everyone here would be interested in seeing this 911 movie and after watching it tell me what you think about the Republicans ...

Sure. I think that if all the Republican's enemies were as desperately stupid as the UFO-chasing morons who made "Loose Change", they would have taken over the earth long ago and would be using everyone else for batteries, like those poor bastards in The Matrix.

If you want to be paranoid, irrelevant, and politically castrated, retreating into the fantasy world of the conspiracy freaks is the way to go. It's your choice, Jessica.

Tom, Jim,

You guys have really lost it. "It's all about the leaks", or "it's all about the intelligence agents who hate Bush!"

As Monkeyboy says - then release the report. Simple.

I'm never sure whether you guys here are being willfully ignorant, or simply engaging in partisan hypocrisy. (Hypocrisy does rule, after all, when it comes to partisanship.)

Military is breaking down.
Military can't control Iraq.
Invasion of Iraq has made terror worse.
Torture under the new Shia security services, is as bad - if not worse, than what happened under Saddam.

Not to mention the brutal civil war going on.

All in all, anyone is seriously misguided, having deeply impaired judgment, to think invading Iraq was a good idea.

I'm sure in the other areas of your life, your judgment is not as impaired. Use some of that critical analytic capacity, and apply it to this situation - the answer is obvious.

The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding. The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

'This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times,' said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions. Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.

According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels."

Source

Noted without comment.

Re the intelligence report that we are now less safe than prior to the invasion of Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq, how many American embassies have been bombed? None. How many apartment complexes with Americans in them have been bombed? None. It looks to me like the world is now a safer place for Westerners, not the opposite.

If the jihadists are going to target the West anyway, it makes sense to have them target an entity that can fire back at them with overwhelming force, which is one reason why we have a large contingent of professional soldiers in Iraq.