September 26, 2006
"not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe..."
This is worth reading...
Yesterday, we noted that the MSM (along with their fellow travelers in the intel community), had apparently "cherry-picked" information from a recent National Intelligence Estimate, making their case that the Bush Administration's War on Terror had actually made the problem worse. In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.
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)....(Thanks to PowerLine)
Philosophically, by the way, I think that the fact that mistakes have been made is good. A good sign. This War on Terror is a new thing, and the only way to learn how to fight it is is to jump in and try, and make lots of "mistakes." And the only way to avoid making mistakes is inactivity. Clintonism.
Actually, I am oversimplifying. You need to "jump in and try things," but within the context of a correct basic understanding of what it is you are trying to do. You need to have a compass heading to follow, before you start thrashing through the sticker patch.
I support the Administration in the War not because I think they don't make mistakes, but because I agree with their compass heading. And the contempt I feel for President Bush's liberal opponents is huge, not because I think they would necessarily make more "mistakes" if they were in charge, but because they have no compass.
They have never made a philosophical case for a different Grand Strategy. Without that, to continually oppose and hinder our elected leadership means they are not a "loyal opposition." They are just treasonous ankle-biters.
Posted by John Weidner at September 26, 2006 06:25 AMJohn, it's not that they lack a different Grand Stategy. They have one, and while it's hard to get it out of them, it basically boils down to doing exactly what the Clinton Administration did.
They fact that their Grand Strategy didn't work, that it lead to the embassies, the Cole, and 9-11 really doesn't bother them. They shrug off everything before 9-11, and blame 9-11 itself on President Bush. Never mind that this makes no sense. One hallmark of the liberal mind is caring more about intentions than results. To you and me, that sounds like insanity, but according to the psych's, the good-intentions folks make up something like a third of the population (including my ex-wife). As with the war on poverty and socialism in general, repeated failures just don't matter, or at least do not give a reason for changing their compass heading. They always argue in the face of failure for more of the same, a faster pace down the demonstrably ineffective but well-intentioned heading. Those are the nice liberals, and on even numbered days like today, I believe they're the majority of the Left. Tomorrow is an odd numbered day, so I will believe they are nefarious scoundrels more interested in personal power than in the well being of their fellow men.
