Fox News' Wright claimed Dems want to "cut and run" from Iraq, appeared to adopt White House assertion that leaked NIE finding is "cherry-picked information"
In a September 26 report discussing a hearing held by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on the Iraq war, as well as National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's response to a leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) indicating that the Iraq war has led to an increase in global terrorism, Fox News reporter Kelly Wright asserted on Fox News Live that "some Democrats" are seeking to "cut and run as soon as possible" from Iraq. Wright also appeared to adopt the Bush administration's claim that the leaked portion of the NIE constitutes, in Wright's words, "cherry-picked information." As the Associated Press reported on September 26, "Bush administration officials including Negroponte are contesting the media accounts [of the NIE], saying they describe only a portion of the conclusions and therefore distort the analysts' findings on trends in global terrorism."
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the September 26 edition of Fox News Live:
E.D. HILL (co-host): People are saying we're not as prepared as we should be, and we could be at risk, at danger. The White House saying, "Yes, we're more vigilant. We're more prepared. We are safe." And then you get this National Intelligence report, and you see --
JOHN SCOTT (co-host): Cherry-picked.
HILL: Yeah, that there is other information. Let's take you to Washington right now, and Wendell Goler -- or, Kelly Wright, I should say -- is following the story live in our Washington newsroom. Kelly, good morning.
WRIGHT: [Inaudible] you, and welcome, by the way. And John, I think said it best: cherry-picked information. Anyway, today at 11 o'clock, Senators Dick Durbin [D-IL] and Charles Schumer [D-NY] are holding a news conference to call on National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to brief members of Congress on the National Intelligence Estimate.
[...]
WRIGHT: A number of retired military leaders invited by the Democrats agreed [that the war in Iraq has been a recruiting tool for terrorists]. But unlike some Democrats who want to establish a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops or cut and run as soon as possible, the military leaders say such a proposal is not good.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Capt. Kirk [looking down at the body of a crewman]: Report, Bones. Bones: Bad news, Jim. He's dead. Kirk: Dead? Perhaps, but why is that bad news? Bones: Uh.... Kirk: I mean, look at how good he looks in that uniform! And those shoes! Spit polish so bright I have to shade my eyes! Bones: Yes, but... Kirk: I expect my officers to give me the whole story, Bones, not cherry pick information. You're confined to quarters until further notice. Bones: Jim?..?? Kirk: That's an order! In the meantime, find out for me who does his hair, willya? Brilliant! I wish I looked that good!
Let's think back to how it was that the American people were snookered into thinking that a war in Iraq might be a good idea. This happened because the best intelligence was -- repeatedly and deliberately -- distorted by official statements that focused on a few opinions and characterized only a small handful of judgments. That's how the country was misled into this fiasco, this bad idea poorly executed which has served only to strengthen terrorism and to further endanger both the people of America and the people of Iraq. And now the very same people who spent years cherry-picking intelligence, ignoring all caveats, doubts and even refutations of their favored minority opinions, these very same people are calling for greater nuance, context and qualification in reading the NIE that explains, in 30 blunt pages, how utterly FUBAR their pet project has turned out to be.
The NIE report also contains this:
U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations."
and this:
"A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse."
and this:
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight."
and this:
Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
and this:
"There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."
and this little gem:
"Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."
source: [link to formerspook.blogspot.com]
I didn't see anything in that drivel we call the New York Times about these opinions expressed in the NIE. The only things the NYT mentioned were critical of US and Bush policy. Could it be the NYT is at the very least and anti-Bush and quite possibly an anti-American propaganda organ?
Four years of combat, two failed nations, two losing campaigns, no strategic objectives, no movement towards endgame. And we get leaked some feelgood garbage that doesn't mention that Iraq is in pure anarchy and the Taliban are increasingly taking over Helmand province, while hatred against the US and Israel are reaching new highs.
Yeah, we're winning!
It's 4 pages long. 3 sentences reflect your sentiments. The rest of it reflects the national policy, contrary to what misleading leak in the NY Times suggests.
You offer no useful alternatives to the current policy except get out. As Karzai pointed out two days ago, you do not wait for the Jihadists to come to you and hope you can defeat them at the point of attack. A successful military campaign seeks to take the initiative away from the enemy and choose the time and place of the combat on terms favorable to itself. I'd rather see the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. You apparently prefer it to occur here, as it surely will if the Jihadists are allowed to take the initiative.
Hate for the US and Israel? Tell me how much worse can this hatred be? These Muslim Jihadists have declared their intentions to destroy Israel for over 50 years. They have been railing against the United States at least since the Days of Gamal Abdul Nasser [the 1950's in case you don't know who Nasser was]. They've wanted to destroy us all this time. It has only been recently that the means to attack us has come into their hands.
a junior hight school terminology adapted by the Roviam drones designed to draw attention away from their own policy failures, resulting, as of today, almost as many soldiers dead as the death toll from the Twin Towers attack. And for what ? Now this one drone ( sec Rice ) is trying to compare the current Iraq policy to her upbringing in a ghetto life. May I remind her the 60's was all about americans trying to better american life in America. Totally different from americans sacrificing their lives for purple fingers of foreigners in a foreign land from whom we receive no tangible benefits ( just witnessed Malaki of Iraq, hugging and kissing Almandjien of Iran, two weeks ago )
For right wingers to allege that without looking at all the info, we cannot make any judgments.
We read people here telling us that since we had not seen the whole ABC 9/11 movie, we should not comment. The fact was that we knew that there were distortions in that movie, even if we had not seen the whole thing.
We heard people like Bush and his cronies tell us that since we have not seen the entire new NIE, we cannot make accurate judgments about whether or not the invasion of Iraq has made us safer.
But we can. There was a consensus from the people in the Bush Administration that the invasion of Iraq made us less safe. We don't have to read the whole report to know that.
This is a common right wing tactic currently. They tell others that since they might not know all the facts, that we cannot make any decisive comments asbout the issues. What they are really doing is avoiding responsibility!
Read the whole NIE. Not just what the NYTimes wanted you to see. Bloggers have obtained significant portions of it. See the quotes posted below. They are ALSO in the NIE but the NYT didn't mention a peep about any of those opinions which are generally supportive of the Bush Administration anti-Jihadist effort.
One such who has seen this report:
[link to formerspook.blogspot.com]
We should know by now that the portion of the NIE that supports the administration's "view" that Iraq is making us MORE safe, will never be seen because its "classified". And if pressed Bush will be unable to DE classify it because that would "alert the enemy, embolden the enemy, etc." so he will give us one of his patented, "Ya gotta trust me on this" responses.
OW. Even trying to explain that kind of thinking makes one's head hurt.
"Bush will be unable to DE classify it because that would "alert the enemy"
Is directly contradicted:
"But Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, warned that releasing more of the intelligence assessment could aid terrorists. "We are very cautious and very restrained about the kind of information we want to give al-Qaida," Hoekstra said in a C-SPAN interview Wednesday."
[link to www.comcast.net]
Better luck next time. Thank you for playing.
Bush already made that decision.
Get your head out of your behind. The facts are not what you wish them to be, they are what they are. Just because one congressman objects to the complete declassification of this document does not mean it will not be declassified. Hoekstra is one of the more conservative congressmen. It should come as no surprise that he disagrees with Bush about this. Bush is not really all that conservative.
This smells of a marshmellow like demon named Rove??
Though enough mud on the wall, eventually some will stick! Oldest rule in politics.
This from a man whom had an opponnent thown in jail on trumped up charges, or claim a bug was found in his office on the debates eve before the election.
I think I smell desparation!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
That if there was anything in the report that justified Bush's idiotic foray into Iraq, it would have been declassified by lunchtime on the day it hit Karl Rove's desk?
[link to news.xinhuanet.com]
Did he declassify the whole thing? I don't think so. Besides, my point was that it would have been declassified back in April if there were anything in it to justifiy Puddinhead's Bogus Adventure. Someone leaked it to the press, so Karl Rove has to play damage control and hope that the Republican knuckle-dragging base doesn't read it.
There is much in it that is positive about the Policy. In fact, the assessment looks like a fair and balanced evaluation of what's gone right and wrong with the National Policy against Jihadism thus far, just the sort of thing that national leaders would want as input in making decisions and formulating future plans. The NYT article looks very much like a political hatchet job in light of the whole document.
The news reports say the whole NIE document has been ordered declassified. If it actually is, you are wrong once again.
Even if it does contain anything remotely positive, it is far outweighed by the conclusion that the Iraq War has made the terrorist problem worse. Just how do you put lipstick on THAT pig? Even Karl Rove is scrambling over that one.
I still don't think the whole report has been released. If that proves to be true, then you are right on that one tiny point.
It says what it says. Look at the quotes extracted from it above. These things are all positive about the effects of this policy.
The NIE appears to represent multiple points of view within the intelligence community. There are people therein who believe the three statements quoted by the Times. The mojority of the assessment was more upbeat, reporting many minorand major successes in the policy.
Apparently the Times either did not receive anything in the leak but the three quotes it published, or the Times cherry picked from the leak that which supported its agenda. Incompetent journalism in the first case or dishonest journalism in the second. Take your pick.
BTW: Al Qaeda agrees with the assessment that they are losing:
[link to www.nysun.com]
You are embracing defeatist ideology. If your ideology had as pervasive during WWII as it was in Vietnam, we'd all be speaking German now.
The reality says one thing yet our government's words say another. I trust in the reality.
The Jihadists are too busy runnig, hiding, and fighting for their lives to be any real threat on US soil. Take the pressure off them overseas and they will be back.
The NIE says this.