Couric did not question Chertoff about Al Qaeda "safehaven" in Pakistan
On the July 17 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, during an interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about the recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), anchor Katie Couric did not ask Chertoff about the NIE's finding that Al Qaeda has "regenerated" several elements of its infrastructure, including a "safehaven" in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). A July 18 New York Times article reported that "[i]n identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda's resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf," following a cease-fire deal between tribal leaders and the government that the Bush administration "reluctantly endorsed," according to the Times.
Couric asked Chertoff: "With the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent and the thousands of lives lost, how is it possible that Al Qaeda has managed to rebuild itself to the degree it has?" Chertoff responded that while the United States had "devoted a lot of energy to increasing our defenses," Al Qaeda hasn't "been standing still." Chertoff added that through "observing what we've done" and "learn[ing] lessons" accordingly, "they continue to grow and they morph," and "they begin to stretch into places like Europe, North Africa, and East Africa. ... It's a long war, and it's one in which we can't afford to rest on our laurels because I will tell you, the enemy is not resting on its laurels." Couric then ended the interview.
Couric did not ask Chertoff about the NIE's assessment that Al Qaeda has been able to "protect[] or regenerate[] key elements of its Homeland attack capability," including the "safehaven" in the FATA, which, as The New York Times reported, "intelligence officials and White House aides" claim is the result of the cease-fire agreement between the tribal leaders and Musharraf. The Times further reported that the Bush administration "had reluctantly endorsed the cease-fire as part of their effort to prop up" Musharraf's government, which prompted "[s]ome members of Congress [to] argue that" the administration's support for Musharraf had "thwart[ed] American counterterrorism efforts."
The NIE concluded that due to Al Qaeda's ability to protect or regenerate its capability to attack, "the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment."
From the NIE's "Key Judgments":
Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.
- As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.
According to the Times, "President Bush's top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed," and a July 18 Washington Post article reported that "Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said yesterday that Musharraf is 'moving forces, again, into that region to put pressure on al-Qaeda.' "
From the July 18 New York Times article:
The growing Qaeda threat in Pakistan has prompted repeated trips to Islamabad by senior administration officials to lean on officials there and calls by lawmakers to make American aid to Pakistan contingent on a sustained counterterrorism effort by General Musharraf's government.
Some members of Congress argue that concern for the stability of General Musharraf's government had for too long dominated the White House strategy for dealing with Pakistan, thwarting American counterterrorism efforts.
"We have to change policy," said Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who has long advocated a more aggressive American intelligence campaign in Pakistan.
From the July 17 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: What specific new action is being taken in the face of this heightened threat?
CHERTOFF: We're beginning, of course, outside the country with increased deployment of air marshals, more vigorous collection and analysis of intelligence. We've done more in terms of surging our security capabilities in the aviation sector. We've got more visible canine teams and other personnel, and some that are not visible, in our airports and in our mass transit.
COURIC: It's been about six years since the war on terror began. With the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent and the thousands of lives lost, how is it possible that Al Qaeda has managed to rebuild itself to the degree it has?
CHERTOFF: Well, I think it's a recognition of the fact that just as we've devoted a lot of energy to increasing our defenses, they haven't been standing still. They've learned lessons, observing what we've done, and as they continue to grow and they morph, they begin to stretch into places like Europe, North Africa, and East Africa. This is a dynamic situation. It's a long war, and it's one in which we can't afford to rest on our laurels because I will tell you, the enemy is not resting on its laurels.
COURIC: Michael Chertoff, thanks so much for your time.
"they begin to stretch into places like Europe, North Africa, and East Africa"
But...I thought we had all the turrists pinned down in Iraq....DOH! Silly me.
I'm having a hard time understanding the issue here. Is MMFA pointing out that while Chertoff is pointing to all these other areas like "Europe, North Africa and East Africa, that, Couris failed to ask about Pakistan due to the NIE's assessment?
In any case, spreading democracy to one country will spread terrorism to MANY OTHER PLACES!
Pakistan's not a Democracy, and the US has Zero interest in spreading Democracy to Pakistan. Far from it- Pakistan WAS a democracy until Musharef took power in a military coup.
Let's understand what we are being told by the Administration: Osama Bin Laden is in an area overlapping Afghanistan, a nation we allegedly defeated and occupied and is now controlled by a Pro-American Government out of Kabul, and Pakistan, one of our Staunchest Allies in the War on Terror. That's where Bin Laden is. So we'll fight "terrorism" in other countries where Bin Laden is NOT. Make sense? Then please, explain it to me.
we invaded afghanistan because bin ladin was in the country and they would not turn him over. now he's in pakistan and....
we're going to outsmart him by attacking Iran !
(sorry for finishing your sentence, but that big juicy ellipse...)
I'd better give somebody else a turn.
And once we've liberated Iran,...
...tic tac toe!!! Three in a row!!!
And once our oil is safe in our pipeline through Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq,...
perpetual warmongering from a professional warmonger.
same old, same old.
anyone for peas?
I demand whirled peas, please!
I had a gut feeleing she ( Couric ) wasn't going to ask Mr Chertoff that .
Zing, Wolf !
Translation of "We've Learned Lessons" = we are grossly incompetent, and every time Bush arrogantly overrules people who know what they're talking about, many lives are lost as a result.
Bush's "learning curve" is not only among the most bloody in history, it doesn't WORK ... he continues to NOT "learn lessons" AT ALL, and continues to stubbornly and arrogantly act as if he knows what needs to be done, and doesn't CARE how much death and suffering results. "Stay the course" is NOT "learning lessons".
Mike Rogers' vanilla statement "We have to change policy" is laughable coming from a Congressman who less than a year ago touted Pakistan as "our premier partner" in the GWOT. http://public.cq.com/public/20060904_homeland.html
Disappointing that the NYT didn't do any digging on one of Bush's biggest FP cheerleaders/apologists, just printed the quote and moved on.
Rogers has been on the House Intel Committee since he got to Congress, has made numerous trips to Afghanistan & Iraq, & regularly boasts about his intel cred. If he thinks we "need a change" in policy he should start by explaining what he did wrong from 2001-2006.
Friendly and approachable does not equal well-informed and aware...
Oh, I saved this from the other day, saves me some onerous typing:
Profit replaces accuracy and truth as primary goal in MSMThis is called the Taco Bell analogy. Taco Bell is division of PepsiCo, a giant multi-national corporation that also owns, Frito-Lay, Pizza Hut and other fine products. So, in the Taco-Bell management structure, one of the upper managers, let’s say the executive VP for the SW USA (they often have very impressive titles, the better to bandy about at reunions and weddings and so forth) comes up with an idea to eak out a little more profit by some improvement to the wholesale ordering system. This happens all the time as computers allow ever more automation. In fact, this ever increasing productivity is a good thing; it is a major driver of economic growth. Ok, so at the next management retreat in Scottsdale, this VP gets some nice award like a new BMW and few 100 k of stock options. No problem. Take note though, that the quality of the product was not improved. The tacos and chulpas at taco bell are still the same. However, the other VP’s say the Mid West VP for Frito-Lay is now under pressure to find some way to increase his division’s bottom line.
Now, take this whole scenario to a news gathering organization that is part of a mass media conglomerate. The VP of game shows is able to increase his profitability by buying a hit game show from Britain that features lot’s of extraordinarily attractive women, each with a suitcase that maybe has a million dollars in it. I guess it is debatable whether this is an improvement in the quality of game show programming. Personally, the only new game show that intrigued me was who wants to be a millionaire because it had Regis and there was lot’s of strategy as to when to use the various help options. Regardless, the game show VP is showered with praise, adulation and money. The point is that the VP of games did not improve the quality of any existing program, he just had the good luck to buy the US rights to a program that was doing well in another market.
But, the VP of the news division says to himself, “Hmm, I too would like an all expense trip to Bali and a new Cadillac STS, what can I do in my division to create more profits?“ So you see, the corporate conglomerate mentality that leads to ever increasing productivity when applied to mass media results in poorer quality, because quality really does not matter. All that matters is “what can we sell that will make a profit”? The whole Couric as anchor person is a perfect example. Rather than spend tens of millions of dollars on new foreign bureaus, more reporters, more investigators, more producers etc. In other words invest in the quality of the news gathering, CBS management decided to invest tens of millions of dollars in getting Couric. Did hiring Couric improve the quality of the news? Are the stories more accurate and better researched than when Schaefer was the anchor? Apparently not, they are losing viewers in droves.
There is no solution other than what we see here with the increasing reliance on digital online news, new sources of news that live or die by the quality of their product. By quality I mean accuracy, you know, truthiness.
I took out the profanity, but you sent me an error msg anyway,
"Error: Please try to express your views without using profanity."
Is "al Qaeda" profanity?