September 27, 2006

Thank you, New York Times...

The criminal and treasonous publication by the NYT of classified information in the NIE has backfired on them in a delightful way. The report has been declassified. It was obviously cribbed from Random Jottings...

"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."

Remember that the next time somebody tells you we are in Irag "for no reason."

The "journalistic" goal of the NYT and rest of the Gasping Media is to promote appeasement, lefty nihilism, and the election of Democrats. (Yes, that's redundant.) So, don't expect them to make much of this:

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

Like I was sayin'.

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.

Well, duh. I can just see those expense-account Johnnies meeting in fine restaurants with their laptops, and translating RJ into bureaucratese with the aid of Cognac and cigars. They could've at least invited me!

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. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit...

The above is my first quote, with its second sentence added. It should be digested by those conservatives of the PowerLine or NRO stripe who declare democracy a failed policy the instant it fails to produce instant gratification. Democracy is messy, and is a long-term answer, not a short-term remedy.

Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al- Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation...

That's for the fatheads who keep implying that we are only in a war against al Qaeda, and anything else we do is a "distraction."

CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups...

But of course a pre-emptive attack would be wicked. Our Christian duty is to supinely wait until we are nuked. (Then go to the UN for permission to act.)

And there's something else, that's conspicuous here, by its absence. There is no Leftist plan (or Isolationist plan, or Realist plan) to be held up and contrasted with the Bush Administration's vision. They have no plan. They are empty men. Nihilism equals paralysis.

Posted by John Weidner at September 27, 2006 06:29 AM
Comments

I love the double-standard...it's fine to leak classified information for political ends, but it's not alright to declassify information for political ends...

On a similar double-standard note, my brother forwarded me an email with Keith Olbermann's latest screed...it's a rip-roarin' anti-Bush tirade, filled with invective and condemnation. It's childishly ahistoric, nonsensical, disingenuous and so detatched from reality that one thinks it must be satire - but ignoring its ignorance and illogic, even the most anti-Bush guy out there has to admit it's a partisan screed - it is, in fact, the very definition of partisan screed.

And he still has the balls to write the following, referring to Chris Wallace: "Had I — in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail"

Er...journalism? Is that what you're practicing? How can such words escape his mouth?

So Chris Wallace asked a question that's on the minds of millions of Americans. Not on my mind, by the way - I couldn't really care less about Clinton's spin on his tenure - that's supremely uninteresting to me. Nonetheless, there are those who are interested in it. So Chris Wallace asking this question and giving Clinton free reign to froth at the mouth - that's surrendering his credibility as a journalist. But Keith Olbermann can write a rant that would make William Randolph Hearst blush? Wha?


Sorry, it's off-topic to your post, but it's really been driving me nuts...and this does seem like a nice parallel...

Posted by: Ethan Hahn at September 27, 2006 01:59 PM

'Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.'

This observation was based on intel that was fresh way back in February. The situation on the ground has changed dramatically since then. US forces soon thereafter located and killed Zarqawi. Based on intel obtained from his death site, US and Iraqi forces raided safe houses and killed or captured hundreds of jihadists.

The core of the international jihadist movement - al-Qaeda in Iraq - was profoundly damaged if not destroyed. Any attempt to re-establish the organization would have to assume that whatever survived had been compromised. A new al-Qaeda in Iraq would have to start from scratch.

It's worth noting that in tapes released immediately prior to Zarqawi's death, bin Laden and Zawahiri didn't mention Iraq. Even Zarqawi expressed resignation. Captured documents have revealed that his group was unpopular, strapped and struggling.

The NIE observation, if it were written now, would likely be far less conditional. It might say, "Those jihadists who manage to survive the collapse of AQ in Iraq will likely perceive themselves to have failed, and will be unlikely to encourage the further spread of jihadism.'

Posted by: lyle at September 28, 2006 01:22 AM
Weblog by John Weidner