In reporting on President Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's July 30 press availability, several media outlets reported Brown's statement that “Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism,” and noted that Brown's comments seemed to conflict with Bush's repeated assertions that Iraq is the "central front" in “the war on terror.” But none reported that the congressional testimony by the chief U.S. intelligence analyst for international terrorism backs up Brown's assertion, describing Al Qaeda's growing presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a greater threat than “Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

Other news outlets, such as ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News, and the CBS Evening News, simply ignored the apparent discrepancy between Brown's and Bush's comments in reporting on the press availability during their July 30 broadcasts.

In his opening remarks, Brown said: “I strongly support President Bush's initiative, a bold initiative to make early progress in the Middle East peace process. Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism, and as we have done twice in the last year, where there are more forces needed to back up the coalition and NATO effort, they have been provided by the United Kingdom.”

As a July 26 Boston Globe article reported, Edward Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, testified before two House committees on July 25 that “Al Qaeda terrorists operating in South Asia are better equipped to attack the United States than the network's followers in Iraq are.” According to the Globe:

Asked which arm of Al Qaeda concerned him the most, Gistaro told a joint session of the House armed services and intelligence panels that it was South Asia.

“The primary concern is in Al Qaeda in South Asia organizing its own plots against the United States,” he said. Al Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks from its bases in Afghanistan.

The top leaders of the terrorist network, Gistaro added, are “able to exploit the comfort zone in the tribal areas” of Pakistan and Afghanistan and are “bringing people in to train for Western operations.”

“We see increased efforts on the part of Al Qaeda to try and find, train, and deploy people who could get into this country,” he testified.

Indeed, during his July 25 appearance before a joint hearing of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) asked Gistaro which is more capable of attacking the United States: “Al Qaeda in Iraq” or the Al Qaeda operation in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, along the Afghanistan border. Gistaro testified that the FATA-based Al Qaeda contingent is more capable:

ANDREWS: Are they more capable or less capable of attacking us from the FATA relative to Iraq?

GISTARO: Sir, I think the [National Intelligence] Estimate speaks pretty clearly that we are primarily concerned with Al Qaeda in South Asia.

ANDREWS: So they're more capable in the FATA areas as they are in Iraq, right?

GISTARO: Yes, sir.

A Nexis search revealed that The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Associated Press, and CNN all covered Brown's statements, but presented them simply as a difference of opinion between the two leaders. For example, the Los Angeles Times, which has previously reported on how Gistaro's testimony “undercut[]” Bush's messaging on Iraq, noted the “different language the two leaders employed on Iraq and Afghanistan,” but gave no indication that Brown's “language” is actually supported by U.S. intelligence:

President Bush and Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, emphasized Monday that their nations are united by shared values and a deep commitment to defeat global terrorism.

But Brown also telegraphed his differences with the U.S. president over the issue, choosing to define the struggle as a fight against crime, instead of a war on terror, and calling Afghanistan, not Iraq, the front line.

[...]

Bush was clearly aware that Brown was walking a fine line, and made a point of saying that Britain is as important to the United States as the other way around. “I would say that the relationship between Great Britain and America is our most important bilateral relationship,” he said.

Still, the different language the two leaders employed on Iraq and Afghanistan stood out. When he was questioned about it, Brown appeared to smooth over the difference by saying that Afghanistan was “the first line in the battle against the Taliban.”

Brown's official spokesman, who is not quoted by name according to British convention, said the prime minister meant both that Afghanistan is the “front line” and the “first line.”

“What he meant was that Afghanistan was the front line and remains the front line where we are taking on the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” said the spokesman.

Similarly, on the July 30 edition of CNN Newsroom, White House correspondent Ed Henry reported simply that Brown's comments “didn't seem to square with what Mr. Bush has said over and over that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror”:

HENRY: But Mr. Brown did hint at the possibility of the fall of British troop pullouts, talking about how Britain has secured three out of the four provinces that they are in, and they hope to secure the fourth very soon.

And on the issue of Afghanistan, Mr. Brown said he believes Afghanistan is the front line in the fight against terrorism. That didn't seem to square with what Mr. Bush has said over and over that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Pressed by a British reporter to clarify, Mr. Brown said he also believes Al Qaeda is a threat in Iraq, which is more in line with what Mr. Bush has been saying.

The point is, there is very little daylight between these two men, but certainly potentially more daylight than there was between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair.

As the Los Angeles Times article noted, later during the press availability, a reporter questioned Brown about this comment, and he recharacterized his remarks, saying “I think I described Afghanistan as the first line in the battle against the Taliban”:

REPORTER: Mr. President, you trusted Tony Blair not, in your phrase, to cut and run from Iraq. After your talks, do you believe you can trust Gordon Brown in the same way?

And Prime Minister, you talked of Afghanistan being the front line in the struggle against terror, not Iraq. Do you believe that British troops in Iraq are part of the struggle against terrorism or, as many people now believe, making that harder, not easier, to win?

BROWN: Well, perhaps I should deal with the first one and then pass on to you, President.

In Iraq, you're dealing with Sunni-Shia violence, you're dealing with the involvement of Iran, but you're certainly dealing with a large number of Al Qaeda terrorists. And I think I described Afghanistan as the first line in the battle against the Taliban, and of course the Taliban in Afghanistan is what we are dealing with in the provinces for which we've got responsibility, and doing so with some success.

There is no doubt, therefore, that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them, and there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself.

So one of the tests that the military commanders will have on the ground, in the province for which we've got direct responsibility now and before we move from combat to overwatch, is whether we are strong enough and they are strong enough to enable them to stand up against that threat.