Selective Analysis: The NYT and the leaked NIE

Recently the NYT reported on an leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), highlighting that the Iraq war has increased the Islamic terrorist threat. To clarify this document, and to shed light on the selective analysis by the NYT for politcal/commercial gain, President Bush released to the public, some of this NIE. I frequent The Belmont Club because I like his analysis style. Here is his review of the released National Intelligence Estimate. I note 2 things:

1. Yes, Iraq is a rallying call for Islamic extremists. But they did not need Iraq for this. They were already rallying against the west for decades. Prior to 9/11 they were rallying in Afghanistan, readying for the fight. Iraq is just the location of the current fight.
2. Not reported in the NYT piece, the same NIE that says Iraq is causing more terrorists states the Jihadi's view a victory of a democratic Islamic nation in Iraq will be a great loss to their Islamic extremist future. (So winning in Iraq will ultimately reduce terrorists even though, prior to victory, it has increased it)

"Iraq was not necessary at all to provoke the attack of September the 11th."
- The Belmont Club

Condi responds to Clintons Out-burst

Comments from Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice in the NY Post:

----------

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said...

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded...

In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.

"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Interesting analogy

Here's a short piece from Powerline. The punch-line is:

Remember when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, and liberal commentators immediately blamed Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives, who, to put it mildly, had never advocated blowing up government buildings? We can only wonder what these same liberals will say if someone makes a serious effort to assassinate President Bush.

The best line, though is:

Chris Matthews is so far around the bend that the only explanation for his continued tenure on MSNBC is that MSNBC executives don't watch their channel, either.