+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    What the Times and Wapo left out of their NIE stories

    Let me ask you folks on the left something. Why is it that we have not heard a thing about the 2003, 2004, or 2005 NIE? Could it be that the press is only interested in things that bash Bush, not confirm his policies and beliefs?

    Anyway, I though those of you might want a sneak preview of what the WHOLE NIE states, rather than the select "Smear job" quotes printed in the NY Slimes, so here you go...

    This is from a web site operated by a former intelligence officer with 20 years' experience. He has obtained access to portions, at least, of the intelligence agencies' report.

    Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

    In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

    Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

    The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

    More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

    And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

    The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

    The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.
    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006...ad-in-nyt.html


    And then there's this:

    Bush orders Iraq intelligence report declassified


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bemoaning an election-year leak, President George W. Bush on Tuesday said he would declassify a secret terrorism document that included a judgment the Iraq war had spread Islamic extremism.

    At a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush said political opponents had disclosed only select parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, a U.S. global report on terrorism, and he decided to make the document public so "you read it for yourself."

    "Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," Bush said.

    The report, disclosed over the weekend, said the analysis by the 16 U.S. spy agencies completed in April concluded the Iraq war had spread Islamic radicalism and made the overall terrorism problem worse.

    Democrats seized on it to criticize the Republican administration over the increasingly unpopular war, a key issue just weeks before the November 7 elections when control of both houses of the U.S. Congress is at stake.

    Bush is intent on portraying his party as stronger on national security than Democrats and better able to protect Americans.

    A public version of the intelligence document could be made available this week, officials said.


    http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...SH.xml&src=rss



    Does this sound familiar?

    The last time the president did this was to prove Joe Wilson was full of sh!t. This time, it's to show the bias (like that needs to be shown) of the NY Times and Washington Post, by letting the American people read it for themselves.

    This ought to be good!


    .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: What the Times and Wapo left out of their NIE stories

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17

    Anyway, I though those of you might want a sneak preview of what the WHOLE NIE states, rather than the select "Smear job" quotes printed in the NY Slimes, so here you go...

    This is from a web site operated by a former intelligence officer with 20 years' experience. He has obtained access to portions, at least, of the intelligence agencies' report.


    .
    Ummmm, I thought this report was classified? Are you suggesting that somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for politcal purposes? Oh the horror of it all!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: What the Times and Wapo left out of their NIE stories

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    Ummmm, I thought this report was classified? Are you suggesting that somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for politcal purposes? Oh the horror of it all!
    That's exactly what the liberal left and the Bush bashers did. They leaked parts of the classified National Intelligence Estimate to the NY Times. The NY Times in their fine tradition of printing anything that might look bad for the Bush administration or republicans in general, printed it. Just like they did the top secret programs our government used to capture terrorists and prevent more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

    Nothing new for the Times, or for the liberal left leakers... Business as usual is what I see.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: What the Times and Wapo left out of their NIE stories

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    That's exactly what the liberal left and the Bush bashers did. They leaked parts of the classified National Intelligence Estimate to the NY Times. The NY Times in their fine tradition of printing anything that might look bad for the Bush administration or republicans in general, printed it. Just like they did the top secret programs our government used to capture terrorists and prevent more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

    Nothing new for the Times, or for the liberal left leakers... Business as usual is what I see.
    I know what was in the Times. I'm talking about this right wing web site you posted from that is leaking all of this classified information. No condemnation from you about this? In fact, they are supposedly quoted right from this classified document.

    Does anyone see the irony here? Grim condemns the New York Times for publishing parts of the classified NIE. Anyone who has read posts by Grim knows that he considers such actions on the part of the NYT to be treasonous. Yet, he goes out and finds a right wing website that claims to be releasing parts of the same classified document. Does he condemn them? Absolutely not. What does he do? He proceeds to disburse information from a classified document all over the internet. That, my friends, is called hypocrisy.
    Last edited by bairdi; 09-27-2006 at 02:00 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: What the Times and Wapo left out of their NIE stories

    Whatever you say Bairdi...

    The fact is, it was the liberal left that leaked it to the times to try and FALSELY condemn the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. This ex-CIA agent did the right thing by setting the record straight.

    You see bairdi, there are still people in America that want the truth. Unlike the people like you, that are so politically bent by their hatred, that they don't care what is true and what isn't. As long as something serves the lefts political agenda, the validity of that something, will never be considered.

    You all demonstrate this every day right here on this forum.

    .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: What the Times and Wapo left out of their NIE stories

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Let me ask you folks on the left something. Why is it that we have not heard a thing about the 2003, 2004, or 2005 NIE? Could it be that the press is only interested in things that bash Bush, not confirm his policies and beliefs?

    Anyway, I though those of you might want a sneak preview of what the WHOLE NIE states, rather than the select "Smear job" quotes printed in the NY Slimes, so here you go...

    This is from a web site operated by a former intelligence officer with 20 years' experience. He has obtained access to portions, at least, of the intelligence agencies' report.

    Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

    In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

    Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

    The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

    More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

    And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

    The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

    The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.
    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006...ad-in-nyt.html


    And then there's this:

    Bush orders Iraq intelligence report declassified


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bemoaning an election-year leak, President George W. Bush on Tuesday said he would declassify a secret terrorism document that included a judgment the Iraq war had spread Islamic extremism.

    At a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush said political opponents had disclosed only select parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, a U.S. global report on terrorism, and he decided to make the document public so "you read it for yourself."

    "Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," Bush said.

    The report, disclosed over the weekend, said the analysis by the 16 U.S. spy agencies completed in April concluded the Iraq war had spread Islamic radicalism and made the overall terrorism problem worse.

    Democrats seized on it to criticize the Republican administration over the increasingly unpopular war, a key issue just weeks before the November 7 elections when control of both houses of the U.S. Congress is at stake.

    Bush is intent on portraying his party as stronger on national security than Democrats and better able to protect Americans.

    A public version of the intelligence document could be made available this week, officials said.


    http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...SH.xml&src=rss



    Does this sound familiar?

    The last time the president did this was to prove Joe Wilson was full of sh!t. This time, it's to show the bias (like that needs to be shown) of the NY Times and Washington Post, by letting the American people read it for themselves.

    This ought to be good!


    .
    actually,i was more of the HOPE that YOU WOULD BE GOOD!?hehe!!but hey!!do a search on GOOGLE with NIE!?it will return NOTHING of what you are SO PROUD OF!?hehe!!get a clue!?..will ya!?hehe!!just askin.....

Similar Threads

  1. Wow! WaPo Tells The Truth About Racist DOJ...
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 09:46 PM
  2. UNBELIEVABLE!!! WAPO Attacks Palin with BS on pg.1
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 06:56 PM
  3. WAPO/MSM Palin lie of the day
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 03:56 PM
  4. WaPo: 'Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit'
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-10-2008, 08:50 PM
  5. WAPO figures it out: Senate Report hack job
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •