Mission Accomplished At The Times

Adam Nagourney gloats about the success of the Times' September Surprise:

Democrats Turned War Into an Ally

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
This article was reported by Adam Nagourney, Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny and written by Mr. Nagourney.

On a warm night in mid-September, Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat leading his party’s campaign to win back the House, stood in front of I Ricchi, a stylish Italian restaurant in downtown Washington, screaming at an aide who happened to be in his sight.

Why, he demanded, had Iraq fallen off the front pages and the evening news, replaced by President Bush’s weeklong commemoration of the Sept. 11 anniversary? How could Democrats win if this unpopular war was fought uncovered? As he headed in for dinner, he pronounced himself as despondent about his party’s hopes as he had been all year.

Two weeks later, the political world had turned, propelled by new bursts of violence in Iraq, new questions about incompetence in the waging of the war in Iraq, and an intelligence report suggesting that the American invasion had actually worsened the terrorist threat.

"Suggesting" is artfully chosen; the Times was less cautious when they broke this leak of a National Intelligence Estimate (1, 2) on Sept 24:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

by MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Unsurprisingly, the Times report was a bit tilted; a few days later Bush declassified the key judgments of the NIE and we saw things like this:

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Thank heaven for intelligence agencies - who would have guessed that a failure by the jihadists in Iraq would set them back?  Of course, withdrawing US troops may not be the best way to bring about that jihadist failure, but the Times report overlooked that subtlety.

Here is another quote from the original Times story:

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

Really?  Compared to what?  The NIE made no attempt to establish a baseline.  For example, prior to 2003, jihadists had been inspired by the US troops based in Saudia Arabia as a bulwark against Saddam Hussein, and by US-led UN Sanctions on Iraq, alleged to be killing 5,000 Iraqi babies a month.  How would those two rallying cries have held up if in 2003 the US had settled for attempting to re-tighten "the box" containing Saddam Hussein?

The NIE did not attempt to address alternative history, but said this:

...Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims— - all of which jihadists exploit.

The NIE also noted that Iraq is a useful training ground for jihadists.

Comments

[mariposa]

While it's good to hold their deeds to light and their feet to the fire, surely none should be surprised by the Times's complicity in this. They're just behaving like the snakes they are.

[danking70]

Can't believe they're admitting this.

[MayBee]

I'm making a small, Seinfeldian edit to the story:

As he headed in for dinner, he pronounced himself as despondent about his party’s hopes as he had been all year.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...two weeks later, the political world had turned, propelled by new bursts of violence in Iraq, new questions about incompetence in the waging of the war in Iraq,and an intelligence report suggesting that the American invasion had actually worsened the terrorist threat.

As it was, it left the impression that the second paragraph was mere serendipity.

[Bill Faith]

Excerpted and linked. In all of the "self-inflicted wounds" post-mortems I've read, the thing that no one seems to be mentioning is the Bush administration's failure to go after the major media for divulging classified information. The still have two years to do it but don't hold your breath.

[SunnyDay]

What a plan. They didn't want it to go well, did they? But then I knew that, I just never expected to see it in print.

How could Democrats win if this unpopular war was fought uncovered?

[SunnyDay]

A new day dawns - well in January...meanwhile

[JJ]

GJ, TM.

@ BF

At least go after the consistency problems. This is the new language world of George Lakoff-ian.

[Neo]

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
And they always have clean shirts to play around in.

And in their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
And in their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damm good whacking.

[Pete]

Ultimately in a Democracy we voters deserve to get all the information. The Bush administration did us no favor by supressing the NIE that it perceived harmful to its political interests.

Intelligence is one area where the Bush administration had been in the past quite successful in spinning its alternative version of the reality - a version which remained at odds with the escalating violence and the rising US troop deaths (which IIRC were about 100 in October).

We deserve to have an honest dailog about Iraq. The Bush administration never cared for one - either before the war or after the war.

[clarice]

Why not just post all intel on the internet--let everyone chime in? Beats just skipping it to the NYT.

As to why no prosecutions yet..Let me suggest the existing laws are terribly inadequate except in the hands of a special prosecutor pretending they are relevant to a witch hunt.

[SunnyDay]

All is well, The democrats are in charge. They will tell you everything. It's a bright new day for America!!

[Pete]

clarice - our govt classifies far too many things. Surely some things do deserve to be classified. The general state of things in Iraq do not.

The people there (in Iraq) know how things are going.

It is the Bush administration which has tried every step of the way to classify things that they do not want us to know and to selectively leak things that they want us to know.

[Pofarmer]

It's rather hard to have a meaningful conversation when one side is drumbeating Halliburton, war for oil, Cheney, Hitler, digital brownshirts, he betrayed this country, our soldier are terrorrizing women and children, as bad as nazi's and pol pot, and have you heard about Abu Ghraib?

Face it, the Dems and the MSM weren't interested in a discussion, still aren't.

[jack]

Pete

By now everybody knows that the invasion was about nothing except creating a rallying point for a weak and duplicitous presidency. Most republicans have known this almost from 2003. They simply didn't care about the truth. What they cared about was using the fear of weak-kneed Americans to bolster this very aggresive presidency so that they could get what they figured was there part of the bargain. For some it was the appointment of supremes to limit abortion. For others it was simply to lower their taxes at any cost to anybody.

Few will forget that the religious right was the principle enabler of this presidency and this horrible group of ignorance-celebrating neanderthals will soon be barred from meaningful political discussion. No need to pitty them. They did it to themselves. If one lives in a state where belief in some arbitrary assertion is given greater weight than what is observable and falsifiable then one is doomed to unwittingly create the conditions for ones demise.

But the folks that you and I criticise here, at least most of them, will likely keep clinging to beliefs (of all kinds) because they are too weak to partake in self examination let alone a nonbiased examination of the world and universe around them.

[clarice]

Jack:By now everybody knows that the invasion was about nothing except creating a rallying point for a weak and duplicitous presidency.

Wasn't it prescient then of Bush to have persuaded Congress to pass a resolution in 1998 making regime change in Iraq national policy and to have ghost written all that stuff by Dem leaders emphasizing what a threat Saddam was to our national security?

[clarice]

Jack--try this on for size before you get too disappointed. Pro-war Lieberman is now the most powerful man in Congress. He's a Dem but very pro-war.If the party crosses him on this he can switch and take the majority status with him. (Better that he should be the key player than that stupid putz Chafee.)

[Pofarmer]

What they cared about was using the fear of weak-kneed Americans to bolster this very aggresive presidency so

whoa, whoa, whoa, what about "My Pet Goat" and all that?

You guys fry me. Either Bush is a simmering idiot or an evil genius.

Get over yourselves. Really.

[jack]

Clarice

You have already tried that nonsense. Nobody was biting then and they sure as hell aren't now. There
is no need to keep selling you snake-oil because you will never collect on your end of the bargain.

[clarice]

Yeah, pofarmer, can you believe it Bushitoer let there be an election and forgot to set the Diebold machine so that it would only vote Republican.

Jack, from Kelo to affirmative action to gay marriage, whenever the people have had a chance to vote on it, they are voting conservative. If you think that Chafee was more pro-war than Lieberman, or Webb more anti-war than Allen, you are in for an eye-opener.

The moonbats are out even if the Dems are in.

You still are a man without a party.

(Don't worry they'll raise your minimum wage a bit, though..)

[jack]

Pofarmer Po Po Pofarmer

I didn't say president. I said presidency. But of course your "believing" nature is to be expected to interfere and color everything you do, including something as simple as reading.

But nevertheless Bush is an idiot. Stupid is as stupid does and boy does he do stupid well.

[clarice]

Enough to beat those geniuses, Gore and Kerry.

[jack]

Clarice

As I said. You will never collect on your end of the bargain. This blog is now officially dead.

[clarice]

Really? You have the power to end it? Amazing. You sound like a toddler I know who thinks when she raises her arms at the seashore she makes the tide roll in.

[clarice]

One last thing, Jack. We are in a real war, one that we will be fighting for decades and all but the truest loonies know that..Now that they are in power, the Dems will act more responsibily for they have no other choice. Before that, they could play another tune for idiots.

[anonymous]

This blog is now officially dead.

Posted by: jack | November 09, 2006 at 10:56 PM

[Syl]

I think there are some very graceless election winners that should actually, you know, read the Constitution.

Listen, this is not a dictatorship. The President can say all he wants to. The President has, has no power. The President is a, a perception of power. And he’s lost that power in this election.

said in an interview with NPR....

John Murtha has some learnin' to do. John Murtha was not elected President. George Bush is the Presdident. John Murtha is just a member of Congress. Congress does not make foreign policy.

Congress CAN control the funding for the President's policy but those who would cut and run from Iraq are not in the majority of even the majority of Congress. Nice try though.

Murtha--take a civics course! Or, better yet, move to a country with a parliament.

[shaman]

This blog isn't dead,I just got here.

Clarice:

We're getting to the point where they would even take you to fight the 'decades' long war.

[lonetown]

This blog is dead????

WTF????

Talk about stupid is as stupid says. The trolls apparently are a little sensitive to criticism.

[Bob]

"This blog is now officially dead."

Yeah Jack, and next we'll all start whining how we all need to move to Canada, 'cause it's just so unbearable to be living in the same country as Pelosi... give it a rest moron.

To be honest,(something liberals have a hard time with) this blog will blossom as we watch the moonbats scream for impeachment and the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, while the Democrats fall back to their plan of talking tough but doing nothing. Watch as we go through 2 years of classic liberal double speak... I guess they still have to give the moonbats hope. But maybe by '08, the NYT will be out of business... at least the traitor business.

[hoony]

It amazes me that the nutroots actually believe the results of this election reflect a mandate for radical change. They've convinced themselves that the republicans who lost were beaten by democrats who share their "values".

The reality based community is really a cartoon based community, they stand for nothing and fall for everything.

[Extraneus]

I think we give Democrats too much credit when we assume they believe the things they say about the so-called "war." They chose a strategy to undermine Bush and the new government in Iraq in order to accomplish what they just did, and as disgraceful as it was, it worked. We can trumpet the "new media" all we want, but their allies in the old media unquestionably made a difference. Personally, I blame Bush for not fighting them as aggressively as they deserved.

And let's not forget...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

" He has used such [chemical] weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again..."
W.J. Clinton, December 19, 1998

Posted by: Other Tom | August 11, 2006 at 06:29 AM

[Pofarmer]

Jack

You can beleive anything you want. Doesn't make you not an idiot. BTW, I posted a question down below to dear Liddy. And I'll expand it to you, pete, whoever wants to answer. It's easy to be in opposition.

What do you stand for? Hmmm. That would be interesting.

[sirroberthope]

Pete,
"escalating violence and the rising US troop deaths (which IIRC were about 100 in October).

You mean Ramadan.

[Lamont08]

What does he stand for? He stands for understanding the people who hate us, one can not reach common ground without understanding what is necessary for us to give up for a perceived enemy to like us. We need to find out what it is about us that causes so much hate and we need to change it. It is that simple.

We need Ms. Albright in the State Department again, and not ...

[EDITED]

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
"The moonbats are out even if the Dems are in.

You still are a man without a party.

(Don't worry they'll raise your minimum wage a bit, though..)"

Not if he works for Nancy Pelosi.

[PJC]

Jack: Before you pronounce on the stupidity, or otherwise, of the President you yourself should at least learn how to spell simple words like 'pity' and 'aggressive'; oh, and whether the word you meant o use is 'principle' or 'principal'. Failure to do so tends to undermine your standing in the matter of stupidity pronouncements. In fact, it makes you look like the moron. Have a nice day.

[Pete]

Yeah, but Ramadan comes evey year. Bush has been pumping in Iraq a Billion plus dollars every WEEK for how many years now?

[PeterUK]

"What does he stand for? He stands for understanding the people who hate us, one can not reach common ground without understanding what is necessary for us to give up for a perceived enemy to like us."

They don't like,liberals,communists,gays,Christians,Hindus,Buddhists,Zoroastrians,ancester worshippers,any who do not regard Allah as the one true God,democracy,the rule of common law,adulterers,uppity women,revealing dress code,popular music,alcohol,drugs,lending money for interest,those who don't submit,I'm sure there's an orange jump suit in there for you somewhere Jack.

[hit and run]

This blog is now officially dead.

True. So very true. No reason to hang around here any more. Time to move on.

Hey, you go on ahead, we'll catch up with you later - we're just gonna stick around and turn off the lights.

[PeterUK]

Pete,
There was the Ramadan offensive,a little re-run just prior to the mid-term elections,just to help boost the Democrats

[Patton]

I am confused...

haven't the Democrats announced a timetable to cut off funding for the war and removal of the troops?

I can't believe the liberals will let one more dime of funding go toward the liberation of Iraq...I mean what are elections for anyway.

The voters have spoken!

[lurker]

Yeah, but Ramadan comes evey year. Bush has been pumping in Iraq a Billion plus dollars every WEEK for how many years now?

So what's the point. It was and still is necessary to win the war against terrorism.

[SunnyDay]

jack seems a little bitter for someone whose party just won. Seems to me he should be out celebrating, instead of trolling on a dead blog.

[PeterUK]

Patton,
That is why Pelosi is redefining the definitions,"Situation Solved" sounds so much better than "Cut and Run".
What is amusing is that the respect they Democrats claim they will "regain" on the world stage will be as nothing,everyone will be sniggering and laughing up their sleaves.
Any future Democrat president will face a nuclear armed regional super power ,Iran,and an economic giant China,both of whom will know that America can be beaten.You will have lost face in the eyes of two cultures where saving face is all important.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

Given the billions of dollars, the time, the effort, the comission of US diplomatic capital, why on earth would Iraq NOT be an issue in this campaign or something worthy of coverage in the New York Times? Hm? And why wouldn't the US Congress failure to provide anything in the way of meaningful oversight over the policy fiasco presided over by Bush be a major issue? And, finally, given the opportunity to report on problems in our Iraqi misadventure outlined in an NIE, why wouldn't the NYRT do that? Heck. I think any news outlet -- and that includes Fox News -- would report on the leaked content of an NIE, to the extent conclusions relate to policy. If you want to complain about timing, stick to Foley, where there is at least an argument.

Complaining about the information you receive from biased media , in the end, is really stupid. The active thinkers here can glean the information and chuck the bias. The real problem with bias in new stories, is not in the information provided, but the information concealed.

And, finally, Iraq touches a lot of people, whether you like it or not, and those people do not always like to be touched. I have friends in the guard called up to serve there. My brother is quite happy he is in the naval reserve, because he is unlikely to get sent. A couple of weeks ago, getting Mexican in a tiny Georgia town, I overheard Momma explaining why Daddy had to leave the country, and why they would not be seeing Uncle Bobby again.

You don't escape Iraq, even if the NYT puts the story on page 2.

By the way, reports of the death of this blog are greatly exaggerated, though it does load a little slow sometimes.

[Patton]

If we are to take them at their words..that the liberation of Iraq is actually causing terrorism and we can't win and must turn the country over to the terrorists, I would think immediate redeployment to Okinawa is in order.

[PeterUK]

SunnyDay,
Jack has seen his dreamboat candidate NotLamont06 or 08,trounced.This was a setback for true believers,the apostate Lieberman triumphed.

[Patton]

I would think President Bush would invite Pelosi and Reid to fly with him to Iraq so they could personnely tell the Iraqi government that we are leaving, then have a big press conference in Baghdad where Pelosi and Reid lay out the withdrawal strategy and turn the country over to the terrorists.

Its a short one day trip and it would be over. The troops could be home by Christmas if Pelosi and Reid have any backbone to live up to their convictions.

Why would Pelosi and Reid ask ONE MORE soldier to die for a mistake???

[Reid]

The North and West want to appease terrorism. It's their cities that will be hit when the jihadis come back. Maybe it's time to reconsider secession. They might gladly let the South go this time. At any rate, they sure wouldn't put up much of a fight this time around. Then we Southerners wouldn't need to shed any tears when the inevitable occurs.

[PeterUK]

Patton,
"if Pelosi and Reid have any backbone to live up to their convictions."

Perhaps an unfortunate phrase in the case of Reid?