The President was right: the NIE document was leaked for political purposes

Yesterday in his (rightly) angry answer to questions liberally biased reporter Jennifer Loven made regarding the leaked NIE report that supposedly said that the Iraq war made terrorism worse, the President Bush claimed that select contents of this document were released for political purposes, with it being just a little over a month before the 2006 elections. The Washington Post, whether it meant to or not, confirmed this in a story written today by Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus. From the story (emphasis added):

Descriptions of the unseen document in media reports last weekend quoted intelligence officials as saying it described a global terrorist threat that was worsening as a result of the Iraq war. The reports led to an explosion of reaction, with the Bush administration and leading congressional Republicans saying that the published portions did not reflect the document’s balanced view of successes and remaining challenges. It was no accident, Bush charged, that selective and potentially damaging parts had been “leaked” on the eve of the midterm elections.

Democrats, sensing advantage, contended that the administration had withheld a negative assessment for political reasons and demanded its release. The clamor apparently led Bush, in a meeting yesterday with Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, to authorize publication of the judgments.

Democratic claims of an administration coverup seemed less justified yesterday as it became apparent that the complete classified report had been made available to lawmakers within days of its completion in April.

Copies of the NIE were sent to the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees at the time, through normal electronic information channels available to all members, intelligence and congressional sources said. It arrived at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 26.

In the House, “there was a bit of a snafu with this particular document,” said a spokesman for Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the intelligence committee chairman. “We had a massive computer failure on our classified side.” The first that the committee knew of its existence was late last week, when “it was requested specifically by a member. That was when it was found and scanned into our system.”

Whether the document was ignored or disappeared into cyberspace, however, it seemed to have made little impact on Capitol Hill at the time. No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now, the sources said.

Got that? The document was not “withheld” as Democrats falsely asserted, it was made available. Now, I know that Senators and House members don’t have time to read every little document made available to them, but this one pertained to an assessment of global jihad, and mentioned Iraq in the document, which always sends Democratic representatives tongues wagging. I can’t help but believe that certain Democrats in Washington held on to this CLASSIFIED information until they thought the time was right: a little over a month before the elections, and on the same week that Senator Joe Lieberman was to make a speech about his support for the Iraq war.

Once again, Democrats – and their willing accomplices in the media – show no shame in playing the politics of defeatism regarding an aspect of the war on terror, in this case, Iraq. Anything to get elected, right? Absolutely SHAMELESS.

Andy McCarthy sums up what a lot of people are feeling today (emphasis added):

Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.

It is bad enough when the Muslim charlatans opportunistically use American policies they don’t like for militant propaganda purposes. It is reprehensible when American politicians do it.

Jihadists hate us because they hate us, not because of Iraq. If President Clinton’s Iraq policy was a problem, it was only because he didn’t follow through on it. By threatening to act forcefully but then letting Saddam Hussein and his terror-mongering fester, Clinton played right into al Qaeda’s conviction that America did not have the stomach for a fight and could be attacked with impunity — a conviction that was reinforced when terror attacks were in fact met with paltry, or no, response.

Bush, to the contrary, has chosen to fight al Qaeda where it is standing, figuring captured or dead terrorists can no longer harm Americans. Right now, al Qaeda is standing in Iraq, so that’s where we must fight it — whether or not you agree that we should be there in the first place. It matters nothing that jihadists will use that fight in their recruitment speeches. It matters everything, though, if we withdraw from the fight and they win.

Amen.

Hat tip on the McCarthy link to Malkin, who has a comprehensive link roundup in addition to sharing her own thoughts about the declassified portions of the NIE report.

Update I: I tried to pull up this story from The Hill yesterday but couldn’t get the page to load, probably because it was getting hit with a Drudge-o-lanche. Charlie Rangel is threatening to de-fund the war – assuming Dems regain control of Congress, of course. Let’s not forget that Rep. Rangel would lead the House Ways and Means Committee if that happens.

Update II: Was this guy the leaker?

Update III: Jules Crittenden has a must-read on the initial leak of selected portions of the NIE, an interpretation of the newly declassified portions, as well as the role the press and politicians played in this leak.

Update IV: Check out Powerline’s post about Ted Kennedy’s comments on the issue of the President declassifying the key judgments from the NIE report. (Hat tip: Rob at Say Anything)

10 Responses to "The President was right: the NIE document was leaked for political purposes"

Daniel DiRito says:

September 27, 2006 at 10:55 am

As we approach the midterm election, it is safe to conclude that little focus will be given to these realities and their eventual resolution…other than the GOP arguing that we cannot cut and run and the Democrats contending that the existing course of action is an unmitigated failure. I understand the partisan nature of politics but I can’t help but look for reasonable alternatives that might succeed.

I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, “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”, then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I’m of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations…which seems unlikely at best.

Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.

Read more here:

LINK
Bob says:

September 27, 2006 at 11:13 am

Does anyone know where I can find the declassified recent and controversial NIE report on the net? I have been searching but so far unable to find.
Thank you
Sister Toldjah says:

September 27, 2006 at 11:17 am

Bob – I linked to it towards the end of my post. Here’s the link.
Bob says:

September 27, 2006 at 11:20 am

Got it. Thank you.
The Political Pit Bull says:

September 27, 2006 at 11:36 am

BREAKING: NIE Released

The DNI has just released the declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate. You can download the .pdf document by clicking here. I’ll have thoughts later. Update: The level of distortion by the media of NIE’s key judgments is…
NC Cop says:

September 27, 2006 at 12:35 pm

So, if I may Daniel, you are saying basically that giving the Palestinians a homeland would help ease tensions? I think we all knew that, the question is how do you do it?

You also seem to think that staying the course is not the answer, but pulling out isn’t either. So, again, where does that leave us?

Not trying to be sarcastic, but it doesn’t seem that you have left many options.
Baklava says:

September 27, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Daniel wrote, “will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state.”

Neither we nor Israel can provide for Palestinian state unilaterally. When Arafat was offered 97% of what he wanted but turned it down it was because of the pressure close to him to refuse the deal. They are not willing to recognize Israel as a state. They want it wiped off the map. They have STATED this Daniel. So you can “act” like neither Republicans or Democrats are good enough for you and be all “knowledgeable” but it is entirely a moot point for everyone here. Palestinians just simply need to respect Israel’s right to exist and work with Israel on a 2 state solution. Teaching their kindergarteners such hate and that becoming a martyr with bombs strapped to your chest is the opposite of the methods they should be using. Israel children are not taught that way. They have to live next to such maniacs with a large portion of government revenues going towards Defense.

I appluad Bill Clinton and Bush’s efforts towards the Middle East problem but you can’t applly a solution until you recognize the problem. Do you Daniel?
susan says:

September 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Now, I will admit, this report makes points on both sides of the issue, but the underlying conclusions make it very clear that we are substantially safer if we win in Iraq than if we didn’t. If we triumph and help Iraq establish themselves as a Democracy, the middle east will be one step closer to stabilization, and we will have a lesser risk of a major attack in America.

â€¢ 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.

In regards to the leak in the NYT, amazing that this little tidbit of information didn’t make the front page.

I would like to comment on Ted Kennedy, Democratic lawmakers and the political games they are playing with our lives. To suggest that the “entire report” be declassified, in an political attempt to cast shadows on the parts that have been released, bring up a couple issues.

One: The report would not have been classified to begin with if everything in the report could be released.

Second: Most important in my mind is that, suggesting that the entire report be released, knowing that doing so would put our sources, our ability to collect sensitive intelligence, and our country at risk, shows a distinctive distain of the worth of American lives in relation to the importance of political gain.

It also shows that Ted Kennedy and the democratic lawmakers, are proving once again that they cannot be trusted with the security of our country. It is said that they are weak on terror, because they are!
Baklava says:

September 27, 2006 at 3:56 pm

susan, THe report does NOT make points on both sides of the issue. In fact it makes the point that leaving Iraq would give Al Qaeda a success which they will build upon. It says the OPPOSITE of the Democrats point which is that we should leave Iraq and see this report makes the point. Show us where susan it makes that point. It doesn’t IMHO.

The rest of your post is right on and I agree with you.
Big Bang Hunter says:

September 27, 2006 at 10:37 pm

– The Dembulbs are spinning like partisan tornados. apparently the falling gas prices, healthy economy, bush’s rising approval ratings, and their weak on terrorism position on everything connected wit the WOT, and effectively fighting the Jihadists, really has them rattled. Good. America simply cannot afford the luxury of effete elitist social engineering, and escapism right in the middle of a war.

– Bang

Comments are closed.