NBC's Gregory claimed "no one questions whether this president has been tough on terror," presented NIE Iraq conclusions as partisan attacks
SUMMARY: NBC's David Gregory claimed that "no one questions whether this president has been tough on terror," and that "Democrats charge the U.S. is creating more terrorists because of Iraq." But several reports have called into question Bush's "toughness" in the war on terrorism, and contrary to Gregory's suggestion that only Democrats are claiming "the U.S. is creating more terrorists because of Iraq," that assertion is one of the "key judgments" of recently declassified portions of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate.
On the September 27 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, chief White House correspondent David Gregory, in reporting on the recently declassified portions of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), claimed that "no one questions whether this president has been tough on terror," and that "Democrats charge the U.S. is creating more terrorists because of Iraq." In fact, President Bush's "toughness" in the war on terrorism has been called into question several times, and the claim that "the U.S. is creating more terrorists because of Iraq" is not, as Gregory suggested, just the accusation of Democrats -- it is one of the "key judgments" of the NIE.
From the September 27 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
GREGORY: From Afghanistan to Iraq, no one questions whether this president has been tough on terror, but what is the result? Mr. Bush says one thing:
BUSH [video clip]: Five years after September the 11th, 2001, America is safer, and America is winning the war on terror.
GREGORY: This grim intelligence report says another: that "jihadists ... are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion." So, are we really winning? Three years ago, that was the question Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked in this memo to top advisers. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" Rumsfeld wrote. The intelligence report says no. Democrats charge the U.S. is creating more terrorists because of Iraq.
SEN. JOSEPH R. BIDEN (D-DE) [video clip]: It's not a surprise at all that we have been significantly limited in our ability to deal with worldwide terror because we are tied down, bogged down in, in Iraq.
Bush's "toughness" on terror is certainly not beyond question. The 9-11 Commission and investigative journalist Ron Suskind, in his book, The One Percent Doctrine:: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster, June 2006), have documented the ways in which the Bush administration largely ignored or downplayed the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9-11. Suskind also disclosed that in November 2001, when U.S., Pakistani, and Afghan forces reportedly had Osama bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region, the CIA explicitly warned Bush that the United States risked "los[ing] our prey" if more U.S. troops were not sent to help in the effort. Specifically, Bush was told that additional U.S. forces were needed because the Pakistani soldiers and local Afghan militias were "definitely not" equipped to capture bin Laden themselves. According to Suskind, Bush repeatedly received classified reports from the CIA in early December that the "back door is open" -- referring to the unmanned Afghanistan-Pakistan border. But the Bush administration never committed more troops to the area, and the Al Qaeda leader ultimately escaped.
In its final report, released in the summer of 2004, the 9-11 Commission -- the creation of which Bush opposed -- offered several recommendations to improve U.S. national security against terrorist threats. The Washington Post reported on December 6, 2005, that the disbanded 9-11 Commission had issued the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress a "report card" to assess their performance in reforming the United States' terror-prevention capabilities. According to the Post:
The 10-member bipartisan panel -- whose book-length report about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks became a surprise bestseller -- issued a "report card" that included 5 F's, 12 D's and two "incompletes" in categories including airline passenger screening and improving first responders' communication system.
The group also said there has been little progress in forcing federal agencies to share intelligence and terrorism information and sharply criticized government efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction or establish clear standards for the proper treatment of U.S. detainees.
[...]
According to the panel, the government deserves only one top grade, an A-minus, for its "vigorous effort against terrorist financing." The panel gave out B's and C's for government performance on issues such as the creation of a director of national intelligence and an ongoing presence in Afghanistan.
But in nearly half the categories, the government merited a D, an F or an incomplete grade, according to the report card. Kean and other commission members said at a news conference in Washington that all the goals should be achievable, but that many have languished amid political skirmishing and bureaucratic turf battles.
"None of this is rocket science," said John F. Lehman (R), a Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. "None of it is in the 'too hard' category."
Democrats have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration and the Republican Congress for failing to secure the nation's ports and chemical plants, and have proposed several pieces of legislation seeking to increase funding to secure these vulnerable sites. As Media Matters for America has noted, however, Republicans have consistently voted against these Democratic security proposals.
Also, the initial success of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan has been overshadowed by a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. As early as November 1, 2002, USA Today reported: "It has been a year since the Taliban regime was chased from Kabul, but the surge of tolerance that followed the war has been replaced by caution and growing signs that fundamentalists are making a comeback." The situation has only grown worse since then. The New York Times reported on September 5 that the Taliban resurgence gained strength, due in large part to the failure of the U.S.-led coalition and NATO to maintain security in Afghanistan's outlying provinces, and has transformed Afghanistan "into one of the most troubled fronts in the fight against terrorism."
Further, as Media Matters has noted, during a contentious interview with host Chris Wallace that aired on the September 24 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, former President Bill Clinton also took issue with Bush's "toughness" on terrorism. He asserted that if he were still president "we'd have more than 20,000 troops" in Afghanistan, whereas the Bush administration "thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq." Clinton also pointed to Bush administration failings prior to September 11, including demoting counterterrorism official Richard Clarke and not responding to the attack on the USS Cole.
Moreover, the assertion in the NIE itself, as Gregory noted -- that "jihadists ... are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion" -- is presumably a strong indication that Bush's "toughness" on terror is questionable.
Finally, Gregory falsely suggested that the argument that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists is one made solely by Democrats. In fact the NIE concluded 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."















It's not that Bush isn't tough on terror... it's that he's DUMB on terror.
"No one questions whether this president has been tough on terror".
Yeah we do.
Must be a timeperiod coming up where Gregory needs to fill in for Matt on the Today show. He has to become the Republican talking point to get the gig.
Disgusting.
In case you missed it:
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
I feel like 6 years of propaganda has been lifted from me. I am still stunned despite knowing most of what was covered. Something about it hitting you all at once.
GOP talking points are not reality no matter if a "objective" reporter spews them out or not.
In my mind, this was not a boxing match but a chess match. The question has always been is Bush smart enough to know how to reign in his own people and make the smart command decisions. I have always said that if Bush was president in 1962 during the Cuban missle crisis, we'd all be dead now. The only way we avoided complete catastrophy was because Kennedy was smart enough to pull back from the brink. I was with Bush going into Afganistan, but I always had reservations about Iraq. Something about Iraq always smelled fishy, and in any event, we always had Saddam in a box by that time. Plus, Saddam allowed inspectors at the last minute, so I didn't see any reason to attack. On the issue of homeland security, anytime you get the Feds involved in spending money, it's sure to turn into a boondoggle. So I never had much faith in pouring billions of dollars into existing federal agencies.
So the point about Bush being tough enough is moot.
I supported afghanistan, in fact should have gone in with stronger presence. Iraq was a strategic blunder made worse by inept, should say non-existent, post war planning. Why is this supposedly top notch reporter framing the issue as one of toughness. What the hell does he mean anyway by tough? Tough would be prevailing against conventional wisdom, replacing incompetent heads of depts, hiring unpopular but capable people no matter what their politics, overhaul the CIA or the DOD with all of their combined political power (now that would be something),I cant think of anything that would make me think Bush has been tough on this issue. Terrorism is a war of ideas, of politics at its core. Bush is losing the political war badly on the world stage. Osama couldnt have scripted Bush's reaction any better. The UN, the NIE, and the British now all have reports noting the increase in terrorism due to Iraq war.
You aren't a tough fighter if you don't land a blow.
Osama (if he hasn't died peacefully in bed) is laughing and said 'bastard never laid a glove on me.'
Bush: trash-talks like Muhammaad Ali, folds like Jerry Clooney.
BTW, read this: [link to www.alternet.org]
Bush is a butcher trying to do brain surgery. He points to all the blood on his apron and crows about "makin' progress".
From Afghanistan to Iraq, no one questions whether this president has been tough on terror, but what is the result? Mr. Bush says one thing: // GREGORY
Like Santa Claus to the good little child at Christmas; there ya go, the "Conspiracy on Christmas" O'Reilley keeps whaling about.
If you like your Constitution & Bill of Rights regarded as the "chit-paper" , if Screwing up in a magnitude never seen in modern times, and the wholesale of our government to the corporate interests, and a media that has it's head so far up the Republican's arse so as to make our nation the latest Fascism in the world not to mention the worst joke in history.
We surrendered to Bush/Cheney & Bin Laden the minute we re-elected this administration. America is not supposed to surrender to an aggressor; we are not to surrender to the coward's urge to surrender security for civil liberties, and national dignity.
Passing a bill that legitimizes crimes against humanity by the administration, and ends the habeas corpus for all people Americans or any person on the planet perceived a threat by the Bush Administration. This sole law effectively ends our last hold on democracy, failure to acknowledge this simple truth makes that person a co-conspirator through passive acceptance.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
no one questions whether this president has been tough on terror
Huh? I'm dumbfounded. David, what the heck were you thinking? (It wasn't even a good segue.)
presented NIE Iraq conclusions as partisan attacks
Huh? If you take the "Democrats charged..." by itself, I can see that. However, that was preceeded by "this grim intelligence report says another..."
Question to Gregory: What does "Tough on Terror" mean? Repeating political slogans is not journalism.
"Tough on terror" means you roll your sleeves up to the middle of your forearm, hold your arms out like you're getting ready to draw your six-guns, walk around kinda bow-legged and try to talk like a movie cowboy, so nobody notices you're a preppy pansy little prince.
"Tough on terror" means you're the Commander-in-Chief at the time of the worst terrorist attack on American soil in over 2 centuries, and shortly after decide you don't really think about the guy who planned the thing.
"Tough on terror" is sending young Americans into Iraq for personal and financial/political kickback reasons, even if convincing them means manipulating or withholding intelligence.
Top it off by "joking" about looking for WMD's behind a couch at a press conference, while thousands are dying.
And blaming the previous president, the media, and anyone else who doesn't work fot you for every one of your f**k-ups.
What don't you get about that?.
I like Gregory, but can't figure him out. Whose side is he one?
As for "tough on terror" I think it's fair to say that Bush is very tough on terrorizing us Americans. Polar opposite of FDR. It's simply a cheap trick to confuse. He is very weak on terror if he is creating exponentially more. I am afraid this Moron has played into UBL and the jidahists' hands. Many ARE afraid -- afraid of their own govt. We have met the enemy is it is us. Well, not me, because I haven't been conned by this Admin. They are just horrific marketers of fear. Many are afraid because down deep they truly don't trust Bush to keep us safe. It just kills me to see that Bin Laden is still out there, in a safe zone, and Public Enemy No. 1 has been given a pass by Bush. I pray I am dead wrong, because if I am right, we Americans are in deep deep trouble in the future with a huge loss of Constitutional rights. Lincoln, at least, greatly regretted suspending habeas corpus. Bush wants to be a dictator, inflicting terror toughly on his own people. The Coward in Chief!
For liberals to object to David Gregory's comments re the NEI report that- "Democrats charge the U.S. is creating more terrorists because of Iraq." suggests a fine-tuned defensiveness that has become hyper-hysterical. The ambiguous phrasing triggered a flood of condemnation against Gregory, apparently feeling that one of their own had betrayed their trust to tacitly support their anti-administration crusade.
Political ideology of the sectarian left has become so intolerant it resembles that aspect of the Islamic Sunni Wahhabi who decree that the slightest deviation from ideological doctrine justifies jihadi punishment. To malign Gregory for this imagined disrespect of a liberal talking point suggests a far-left wahhabism has arisen in the base of the Democratic Party whose radical indoctrination is spread through a growing network of madrassa-like websites. The unprecedented scale and scope of political extremism in America seems to be reflecting the rise of sectarian conflict worldwide with its center of gravity in the Middle East- and as in this example- presents a tangible threat to the stability and survival of our democracy.
It's "secular" left, not sectarian. Conservatives are sectarian, they bring their religion into it. Being secular means keeping religion out of it.
If we liberals are like the Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia then why do we like all the cleavage being shown in the latest fashions? I think you're making us out to be far stricter than we actually are. We want bikinis, not burqas.
Those guys over there, the ones with the warplanes and the tanks and the money. Them, right there, in the three peice suits on TV chanting "war! war! war!"...they're the ones you gotta watch out for. They just want to kill people and make you worship their gods. They have a total intolerance of critical thought, liberal ideals such as liberty or justice, detest art and science, want women to be treated second-class. They demand a far-right authoritarian ultraconservative regime to be placed upon our nation. Fear them!
While we deplore the failure of moderate Muslim clergy to denounce extremist Islamist at the same time moderate Democrats fail to disassociate from extremists in their own party. This irresponsibility allows radical idealogy to spread destructively throughout the mainstream of each respective culture by default.
The far-left doctrinaire is so commanding that even moderate Democrats avoid confrontation in lieu of Lieberman's fate when a far-left fatwa lost his bid for renomination. It also explains the schizophrenic nature of Sen. Clinton's platform as she juggles sound bites to appeal both to the radical base which she needs for the party's nomination and still appear strong on fighting the war on terrorism- an imperative for winning the presidency.
Nothing more dangerous then a tough dumb guy, now if we can only elect a tough smart guy just maybe we could repair some of the damage Mr. Potato Head has done.