Network news coverage of declassified NIE fraught with misinformation, GOP talking points
SUMMARY: Evening newscasts on ABC and NBC uncritically aired President Bush's nonsensical non-responses to questions about declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate; NBC and CBS presented misleading reports on the NIE's conclusions, both asserting that the declassified portion of the report at least in part backs up Bush.
In covering the September 26 release of declassified portions of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ABC's World News with Charles Gibson and NBC's Nightly News uncritically aired President Bush's nonsensical non-responses to questions about the NIE, while NBC and the CBS Evening News presented misleading reports on the NIE's conclusions, both asserting that the declassified portion of the report at least in part backs up Bush.
At a September 26 press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Bush, when asked about the contents of the NIE -- which at that point was still classified -- responded in part:
BUSH: You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse.
Both ABC and NBC uncritically aired portions of these comments. From the September 26 broadcast of ABC's World News:
MARTHA RADDATZ (chief White House correspondent): What the report says is that the Iraq jihad is breeding new terrorist leaders and operatives, saying, "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." Mr. Bush has long argued that if the U.S. doesn't fight the terrorists in Iraq, the U.S. would be fighting them at home. The report does say, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse.
RADDATZ: The report was completed in April, prompting the president to charge today that the leaking of the document was purely political.
From the September 26 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
DAVID GREGORY (chief White House correspondent): Appearing with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, Mr. Bush acknowledged that terrorists are using the war in Iraq to recruit followers, but added they've used other excuses in the past.
BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th.
GREGORY: And the president questioned why this report, written back in April, came out now.
However, as Media Matters for America noted, Bush's comments were not responsive to the reporter's question, did not address the contents of the NIE, and, indeed, were nonsensical. In dismissing concerns about the Iraq war's effect on terrorist recruitment by claiming that "[w]e weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th," Raddatz and Gregory could have noted that Bush appeared to be responding to an argument no one is making -- that there were no terrorist attacks before September 11, 2001. And if it is indeed true, as Bush claimed, that "if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse," than Raddatz might have noted that the NIE concluded that the war is being effectively used to swell the ranks of terrorists and asked whether or not it was a mistake to have given the terrorists an "excuse" that they have effectively used to make the world more dangerous.
Gregory went on to report that the declassified portions of the NIE "back up" Bush's claim that "Iraq is an important front on the war on terror":
GREGORY: They felt in this political climate, with so many attacks against the White House and the party about the war, that the president had to respond. It would hurt him otherwise. And there is some context here. We've been talking about it in the report. Yes, ammunition for critics, especially on the question of how many terrorists there are, but also some findings here that back up the president, namely that Iraq is an important front on the war on terror, and if they succeed there, that it could be a real setback to the jihadist movement around the world, Brian.
Gregory, in repeating this Republican talking point, ignored the fact that the declassified portions of the NIE explained exactly why the Iraq war can be considered "an important front on the war on terror" -- because it has become "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists" who have used the war effectively to increase their ranks worldwide.
On the September 26 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported that the declassified portions of the NIE "generally support the president":
AXELROD: The report, a survey of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, does generally support the president, saying that Al Qaeda's leadership has been seriously damaged by the war on terror. But critics of the war in Iraq will also find fuel. The Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives, it says, and that Al Qaeda is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits.
Axelrod's characterization of the report, however, ignored other key findings:
- "Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion."
- "We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland."
- "We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate."
Of the three networks, ABC alone reported on the existence of a second intelligence report focused specifically on the Iraq war. Raddatz, however, noted simply that the report "will not be completed until after the midterm elections." Raddatz failed to note that Rep. Jane Harman (CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, had earlier that day accused Republicans of purposely delaying the report's completion until after the elections. According to Harman:
HARMAN: I have also learned that there is a [National Intelligence Estimate] on Iraq -- specifically on Iraq -- that has been left in draft form at the National Intelligence Council. That is because some of our leaders don't want us to see it until after the election. It should be clear five years after 9-11 that we need accurate and actionable intelligence -- actionable in real time -- and we need our leaders to read that intelligence and cite it accurately. Sadly, we're doing better on the first piece; we're not doing better on the second piece.
After Raddatz's report, anchor Charles Gibson turned to ABC chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos specifically for the "Democratic reaction," but Stephanopoulos made no mention of Harman's remarks about the second Iraq intelligence report:
GIBSON: And our chief Washington correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, also joins us from our Washington bureau tonight. George, Martha gave us the president's view of all this. What's the Democratic reaction today?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Charlie, they have put out a series of statements in the last hour that all make the same point. They say the war in Iraq has made us less safe. They say that's what the report shows. I spoke with the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, and what she says is the report shows that President Bush has it backwards. By fighting the terrorists in Iraq, it shows that it's more likely that we're gonna have to fight them here.
GIBSON: George, Secretary Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said years ago, I asked him an interesting question -- he said, "Are we catching, killing or deterring more jihadists than we're creating?" And this report seems to indicate that the answer is no. It says it quite flatly. So, why would the administration release this report?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, first of all, Charlie, I think they didn't wanna get hit for keeping it secret. That's number one. But the report also does offer some validation for the president's military strategy. It says success in Iraq is a key to containing the threat. It also says that political reform, democratic reform, is a key to containing the threat. The president's made both those points. Finally, Charlie, the White House political operatives believe that if the country is focused on war, if the country is focused on the overall threat, they are gonna choose Republicans over Democrats in November.
We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th.
Neither were the terrorists Mr. President. But, by invading Iraq for geo-political reasons, he has created an entirely new generation of jihadists. The reports that are discussed in this post show you how a story that has both elements of positive and negative get spun to favor the president. Democrats have been screaming for at least 2 years that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. That Iraq was not a threat. That by invading Iraq, it would make us less safe than more. That Iran will be in a stronger position by removing S.H. Now that a leaked NIE supports their position, how does the media report it? By claiming that it supports Bush's arguement of fight them there or fight them here even though they weren't there before we invaded.
That sounds like more of Bush's "fuzzy logic".
Bush is a liar, or he's stupid. Maybe both. The fact that we weren't in Iraq on 9/11 has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. I think Bush came up with that talking point himself...it's too f*****g stupid to be a Karl Rove gem.
If Bush would just admit that invading Iraq was monumentally stupid, I might at least respect the moron.
debated with me the other day that Bush would never actually declassify the NIE; the announcement to do so was just a political ploy; and there could not be any content in the NIE that supported his policies, which was motive for him to keep it secret?
As events unfolded, you have been shown to be wrong on all these points. How would you like your crow served, sir?
"Neither were the terrorists Mr. President"
The following terrorsists were known to have been present in Iraq prior to 9-11: Abu Nidal, Abu Abas, Abu Al Zarqawi, Ansar al Islam and Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot. Saddam is know to have paid blood money to the families of Hamas terrorists in Israel.
[link to husseinandterror.com] [link to www.nationalreview.com]
Your opening statement is clearly false. Open your argument with a false statement. Lose your argument.
But it gets better:
"Democrats have been screaming for at least 2 years that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. That Iraq was not a threat. That by invading Iraq, it would make us less safe than more. That Iran will be in a stronger position by removing S.H." and "NIE supports their position"
There is no census on terrorists, only shadowy estimates. No one, not you, not the NIE and probably not even the Jihadists themselves know whether we are killing more Jihadists than we are motivating to become Jihadists. The NIE says there are more Jihadists, but that the point is moot because the Jihadists have become more dissolute and unorganized because of the Iraq and Afghan wars, so at least on that point Democratic opinion is not supported by the NIE.
"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."
"Iraq is not a threat"... I can leave that on the floor. Blatantly false. Iraq + Saddam were a destabilizing influence in the whole region.
"make us less safe" ... Easy. The NIE is at odds with this. It says: "U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations."
"Iran will be in a stronger position by removing S.H" ... This last point is a hoot! Wasn't just the opposite of this one of the Democratic talking points against Reagan and Bush 41? That they had suppporeted Saddam in the first place as a foil to Iran? And now you are endorsing their policy to crticize Bush 43? Hypocrisy! The greatest threat to the Ayatollahs at present is a popular revolt within Iran. The presence of two states, Iraq and Afghanistan, on Iran's border which have developing democratic and pluralistic institutions is the most politically debilitating thing the Ayatolllahs could face. It is an invasion of a counter-culture that undermines their theocratic tyranny from within. This is one of the masterstrokes of the Bush strategfy: If Bush's plan in Iraq succeeds, Iran is eliminated as a threat.
And last, but certainly not least, who cares if the Sympathizers of Anti-western Jihad are motivated to join the Jihadists by these actions? These arer enemies in the first place, people who will covertly aid those actively engaged in Jihad, giving them food, weapons, aid and sanctuary. Getting them out in the open means an opportunity to defeat them. Defeating them will bring peace. Being defeated by them will just embolden them further, bringing more war and oppressioin from them. The NIE does grasp this last fact at least indirectly as evidenced by this quotation: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."
When anyone reads the edited version of the NIE, it clearly states that Bush's Iraq policies have made the world a scarier place to live, and these reporter/pundits can't spin this away, no matter how hard they try.
on the NIE, Glenn Greenwald pointed to an interesting quote from the NIE:
"Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint... We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support."
Leftist groups on the Internet? Rove's October Surprise is hidden here.
also says if we don't win the war in Iraq it will embolden terrorism.
Did you people read the NIE before the Iraq War???
It said Saddam has wmds, stockpiles of poison gasses, missiles that reached beyond UN sanctioned limits and would have a nuclear weapon withing 10 years.
The NIE is just an opinion.
Bush's answers were not nonsensical. MMFA failed to address his answers. We were not in Iraq. And if more terrorists are emboldened, more are also being killed in Iraq. If there was not a war in Iraq, they would use another excuse to wage jihad, oh, say like something the pope said or whining about a muhammed cartoon or being called jihadist facists or hatred of Israel and on and on and on. The Iraq war is just an excuse and the NIE is right about one thing... we need to finish the job.
It is the comprehensive opinions of the countries chief intelligence arms the CIA being only one of them and the State depts intelligence arm disputed the very assertions you make that were part of the NIE. So what it really said if read completely is that the assertions of Iraq having stockpiles of WMDs was disputed. Nice try though
Bush claims he will "STAY THE COURSE" even if the only ones "with" him are Laura and Barney.
You need to drop him a note, telling him you're right there with Barney. Give him a chance to lay in a supply of biscuit treats.
I find it remarkable that most, if not all, of the above comments are directed to the Bush administration's substantive spin and misdirection of the intelligence reports, rather than to the thrust of MediaMatters post, which was the TV media's complicity and incompetence in dealing with the issue. There are hundreds of sites that attack the Bush administration's prevarications--nothing new there--but few sites, like this one, that focus on the failure of the major media to call them on it. Let's keep our eye on that ball on this website, folks, and rail at the administration elsewhere.
As to the misreporting of the significance of the intelligence studies, I wonder why not one reporter emphasized that the NIE was authored five months ago and that there must have been scores of rosy administration statements in the interim about how we're winning the "war on terror" by means of our invasion and occupation of Iraq? This amounts to a flat-out lie, according to the NIE, but no one seemed to care--or to dare--to so observe and report.