So... do you have back-up (besides Bush's speeches) that the NYT's impression of the NIE was wrong? That is to ask, do you have a link to the actual NIE before you make a judgement on someone's interpritation?
If not, then you are doing nothing but casting stones from a glass house...
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at September 27, 2006 07:26 AM
So... do you have back-up (besides Bush's speeches) that the NYT's impression of the NIE was wrong? That is to ask, do you have a link to the actual NIE before you make a judgement on someone's interpritation?
If not, then you are doing nothing but casting stones from a glass house...
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at September 27, 2006 07:26 AM
The entire 'Key Judgements' section of the NIE was declassified and put on the web yesterday, Georgia. Over half the blogosphere has been linking to it and talking about it. There's a link to it just two posts down, fer gossake.
But no, you need to be spoon-fed, as usual. Very well.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Notice something?
NYTimes version -- 'The US war in Iraq is emboldening the terrorists to become larger than ever. We need to pull out!'
NIE actually says -- 'The US /losing/ the war in Iraq /would/ embolden the terrorists to become larger than ever. We cannot afford to pull out before we achieve a clear victory!'
If I quoted you even half as much out of context as the NYTimes did this NIE, and distorted your position even half as much to falsely appearing as its opposite, you'd hit the ceiling. And justifiably so.
Yet when we hit the ceiling over the NYTimes doing it, you reflexively sneer that we must be ignorant of what's really going on.
It would have been a lot more prudent for you to check whether or not we actually did have links to the NIE available /before/ you yotzed at us for allegedly not having them.
Posted by: Chuckg at September 27, 2006 08:02 AM
And, the link you snippily demanded has just been put up again, one post above this.
Posted by: Chuckg at September 27, 2006 08:19 AM
Hey, Chuck, show exactly where in the Times article that it states:
"We need to pull out!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=2
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 27, 2006 08:27 AM
Well, here's the NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html
And here's the NIE summary:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/images/09/26/nie.declass.pdf/
I don't see anything that the NYTimes got wrong. Mark, care to share with us?
In related news, the crisis over the Shi'ite sponsored federalism bill deepens.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/26/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq.php
Everyone agrees that a glowing democracy would be great in Iraq, and deal a big blow to terrorists. Problem is, we had Bush and Co. running the country, invade Iraq unilaterally (for all intents and purposes) and bungle the post-invasion period. They thought they could just remove Saddam and democracy would naturally take hold. Man, they were wrong.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 27, 2006 08:28 AM
You know, it was really stupid of you to link to page 2 of the article when all 'the Iraq War has only made things worse! aieee!' doomsaying was right there on page 1.
I never understand that. I never understand how somebody can claim one thing, and then himself put up the URL linking to the evidence that his claim were bogus. Do you *expect* zero percent click-through on your posts or something?
Mindboggling.
Posted by: Chuckg at September 27, 2006 09:20 AM
Chuck, it's linking to page 2 because I did a google search for the article, and it brought up the second page. Didn't notice that til after I posted.
I, again, will ask you a very simple question: Where in the NYTimes article does it say, suggest or even infer that the US needs to pull out of Iraq. Please cut and paste the portion that you'd like to cite.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 27, 2006 09:29 AM
Anyone ask Jay Rockefeller his opinion about leaking the classified document.
Maybe bring a little purple rage to that silver spooned turncoat
Posted by: geoff at September 27, 2006 10:20 AM
Deliberate. The NYT is competent, competent "journalistic" whores.
Posted by: SEW at September 27, 2006 10:39 AM
Where in the NYTimes article does it say, suggest or even infer that the US needs to pull out of Iraq? Please cut and paste the portion that you'd like to cite.
Tom, I've read the article twice, and I find no mention of the NYT saying specifically, as a result of this report, that we should pull out of Iraq. So I guess that means the NYT thinks we should stay and finish the job. Is that the point you were trying to make, or were you just nit picking five words in Chuck's post that weren't in the NYT article but were obviously implied?
Posted by: Retired Spook at September 27, 2006 10:48 AM
RS,
What I did was not nitpicking. If we're going to talk about the implications of this report and how the NYTimes reported parts of it, we can't have false claims muddying the waters.
First off, you are correct. The story in no way says that the US should pullout of Iraq. Which should be obvious, since this is a news piece, not an op-ed.
The story reports on aspects of the NIE report and quotes people who have read the entire thing. It correctly states that the NIE reports the Iraq war has helped spread terrorist organizations across the globe, inflamed hatred of the US in the mideast, and helped with terrorist organizations' recruiting and training.
The article makes no attempt to interpret this information in regards to what our current strategy in Iraq should be. It simply reports the information.
People are free to draw their own conclusions from what they report.
Now, you seem to think that saying the invasion of Iraq has helped spread terrorism obviously implies we should withdraw troops.
There are many people who believe that going into Iraq was a mistake and was a bad strategy in the war on terror, but do not advocate pulling out troops... mainly because the situation would just become worse if we left.
Thus, saying invading Iraq was a mistake and has made things worse is not the same as saying we should withdraw from Iraq. People can have the first view without having the second.
You are incorrect in saying this article implicit message is that the US should withdraw from Iraq... just as Chuck was.
I'm just trying to keep the conversation on track, and not have it divert into false avenues.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 27, 2006 11:06 AM
Wow, I thought the NY Slimes fired Jason Blair.
Posted by: Nebraska Militia at September 27, 2006 11:15 AM
"So I guess that means the NYT thinks we should stay and finish the job."
This is a news story, not an op-ed. It's reporting facts for readers.
Now, Bush thought that was leaked to the Times was not a complete picture of the report. So he declassified a summary.
And obviously he disagreed with the source qouted in the report.
But, looking at the report and what was reported in the Times, I don't see anything that is incorrect.
For Mark to say "Now that full information on the NIE is coming out, it is becoming ever more clear that the NY Times got it all wrong." with out backing it up with ANYTHING is rediculous.
And for Chuck to say that the Times story said we need to pull out of Iraq is also rediculous.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 27, 2006 11:16 AM
Yes, we must not 'muddy the waters' by suggesting that the NY Times was, by trumpeting the BS claim that the war in Iraq could only make things worse, not even possibly suggesting that perhaps we should stop doing that war in Iraq thing.
How dare we? Why next, I'll be claiming that if somebody keeps lecturing me about how smoking causes lung cancer, he's actually suggesting I don't pick up that cigarette.
Posted by: Chuckg at September 27, 2006 11:18 AM
"by trumpeting the BS claim that the war in Iraq could only make things worse"
Actually, this is not the case. It was reporting that the NIE concluded that the war in Iraq HAS made things worse.
"not even possibly suggesting that perhaps we should stop doing that war in Iraq thing."
Chuck, I already addressed this:
There are many people who believe that going into Iraq was a mistake and was a bad strategy in the war on terror, but do not advocate pulling out troops... mainly because the situation would just become worse if we left.
Thus, saying invading Iraq was a mistake and has made things worse is not the same as saying we should withdraw from Iraq. People can have the first view without having the second.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 27, 2006 11:45 AM
Ummm... both of the sides are twisting and spinning this report very effectively. Let's unspin things...
Un-leftitizing-
While the report does say that Iraq has bred a potential new generation of terrorists and terrorist leaders and that "the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vunerabilities," it does also say that giving the jihadists a victory in Iraq (by pulling out prematurely) would embolden them further. On the flip side, defeating the terrorists in Iraq would dishearten some of the terrorists and dissuade them from continuing the fight.
Un-rightifying it-
While the report does say that giving terrorists victory in Iraq, it does say that the Iraqi war is breeding new anti-American sentiment in the region because of US involvement in the Muslim World. It also says that terrorism has and will become more dangerous, not less and will continue to grow in intensity. This could be stymed (according to the report) by succeeding in Iraq.
Basically, the report supports what I have always said about the Iraq War. We screwed things up, but the devil we do know is better than the devil we don't. Leaving prematurely will only make things harder in the long run.
Oh, and for those of you who so snippily retorted to my request for a citation... when someone attributes a statement or statements to a particular source, it is their responsibility, not that of the reader, to provide the source of that information. It was probably just an oversight on the writer's part, but the burden is the writers' to carry.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at September 27, 2006 01:32 PM
I'm just trying to keep the conversation on track, and not have it divert into false avenues.
What malarkey, Tommie--your media takes it there daily.
Thus, saying invading Iraq was a mistake and has made things worse is not the same as saying we should withdraw from Iraq. People can have the first view without having the second.
Is this how you interpreted the statement that was cherry-picked, Tommie? I never read anything in the declassified NIE that said "invading Iraq was a mistake." Show me where it says that, Tommie.
Two questions for Tommie:
1. Why do you defend blatantly obvious media bias?
2. Do you not see anything wrong with the NY Slimes printing classified leaked intelligence information.
Hold on, folks--if this asshat even bothers replying, this will be good.
One more question, Tommie, a two-parter: Are you Canadian? If not, why do you hate America so much?
Posted by: keefer at September 27, 2006 07:00 PM
Tom...I'm curious, is there a Terrorist Census?
Exactly how did any organization determine that terrorists have grown?
Also, why do you believe the gov't agencies this time, but when many of these same agencies said Iraq had WMD you say Bush lied.
Hmmmm........
Posted by: Warriornation at September 27, 2006 08:54 PM
The declassified NIE proves Bush is right as expected. The lefties are left with egg on their faces again. God bless you Karl Rove!
Posted by: Bob Arctor at September 28, 2006 02:17 AM
The NIE proves Bush is right?
Well, it backs up his stance that we should not pull troops out of Iraq, but at the same time, it backs up critics who say the war was a mistake.
It seems that success in Iraq right now is it not collapsing into all out civil war. Iraq's been placed, teetering on a cliff by Bush and co. If the car doesn't fall off, that's not victory, it's just disaster averted. There are many questions about Iraq's future that will determine whether is was a good thing we went in. The current analysis indicates that it has hindered our efforts in the war on terror.
Many people point to the fact that AQ has been hurt and fractured. Yes, but that is in large part because of our actions in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that Iraq has given AQ a rallying point just as they were being weakened, and its helped them morph into the scattered, loosely affiliated system it is today.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at September 28, 2006 08:54 AM
So... do you have back-up (besides Bush's speeches) that the NYT's impression of the NIE was wrong? That is to ask, do you have a link to the actual NIE before you make a judgement on someone's interpritation?
If not, then you are doing nothing but casting stones from a glass house...
So... do you have back-up (besides Bush's speeches) that the NYT's impression of the NIE was wrong? That is to ask, do you have a link to the actual NIE before you make a judgement on someone's interpritation?
If not, then you are doing nothing but casting stones from a glass house...
The entire 'Key Judgements' section of the NIE was declassified and put on the web yesterday, Georgia. Over half the blogosphere has been linking to it and talking about it. There's a link to it just two posts down, fer gossake.
But no, you need to be spoon-fed, as usual. Very well.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Notice something?
NYTimes version -- 'The US war in Iraq is emboldening the terrorists to become larger than ever. We need to pull out!'
NIE actually says -- 'The US /losing/ the war in Iraq /would/ embolden the terrorists to become larger than ever. We cannot afford to pull out before we achieve a clear victory!'
If I quoted you even half as much out of context as the NYTimes did this NIE, and distorted your position even half as much to falsely appearing as its opposite, you'd hit the ceiling. And justifiably so.
Yet when we hit the ceiling over the NYTimes doing it, you reflexively sneer that we must be ignorant of what's really going on.
It would have been a lot more prudent for you to check whether or not we actually did have links to the NIE available /before/ you yotzed at us for allegedly not having them.
And, the link you snippily demanded has just been put up again, one post above this.
Hey, Chuck, show exactly where in the Times article that it states:
"We need to pull out!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?pagewanted=2
Well, here's the NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html
And here's the NIE summary:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/images/09/26/nie.declass.pdf/
I don't see anything that the NYTimes got wrong. Mark, care to share with us?
In related news, the crisis over the Shi'ite sponsored federalism bill deepens.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/26/africa/ME_GEN_Iraq.php
Everyone agrees that a glowing democracy would be great in Iraq, and deal a big blow to terrorists. Problem is, we had Bush and Co. running the country, invade Iraq unilaterally (for all intents and purposes) and bungle the post-invasion period. They thought they could just remove Saddam and democracy would naturally take hold. Man, they were wrong.
You know, it was really stupid of you to link to page 2 of the article when all 'the Iraq War has only made things worse! aieee!' doomsaying was right there on page 1.
I never understand that. I never understand how somebody can claim one thing, and then himself put up the URL linking to the evidence that his claim were bogus. Do you *expect* zero percent click-through on your posts or something?
Mindboggling.
Chuck, it's linking to page 2 because I did a google search for the article, and it brought up the second page. Didn't notice that til after I posted.
I, again, will ask you a very simple question: Where in the NYTimes article does it say, suggest or even infer that the US needs to pull out of Iraq. Please cut and paste the portion that you'd like to cite.
Anyone ask Jay Rockefeller his opinion about leaking the classified document.
Maybe bring a little purple rage to that silver spooned turncoat
Deliberate. The NYT is competent, competent "journalistic" whores.
Where in the NYTimes article does it say, suggest or even infer that the US needs to pull out of Iraq? Please cut and paste the portion that you'd like to cite.
Tom, I've read the article twice, and I find no mention of the NYT saying specifically, as a result of this report, that we should pull out of Iraq. So I guess that means the NYT thinks we should stay and finish the job. Is that the point you were trying to make, or were you just nit picking five words in Chuck's post that weren't in the NYT article but were obviously implied?
RS,
What I did was not nitpicking. If we're going to talk about the implications of this report and how the NYTimes reported parts of it, we can't have false claims muddying the waters.
First off, you are correct. The story in no way says that the US should pullout of Iraq. Which should be obvious, since this is a news piece, not an op-ed.
The story reports on aspects of the NIE report and quotes people who have read the entire thing. It correctly states that the NIE reports the Iraq war has helped spread terrorist organizations across the globe, inflamed hatred of the US in the mideast, and helped with terrorist organizations' recruiting and training.
The article makes no attempt to interpret this information in regards to what our current strategy in Iraq should be. It simply reports the information.
People are free to draw their own conclusions from what they report.
Now, you seem to think that saying the invasion of Iraq has helped spread terrorism obviously implies we should withdraw troops.
There are many people who believe that going into Iraq was a mistake and was a bad strategy in the war on terror, but do not advocate pulling out troops... mainly because the situation would just become worse if we left.
Thus, saying invading Iraq was a mistake and has made things worse is not the same as saying we should withdraw from Iraq. People can have the first view without having the second.
You are incorrect in saying this article implicit message is that the US should withdraw from Iraq... just as Chuck was.
I'm just trying to keep the conversation on track, and not have it divert into false avenues.
Wow, I thought the NY Slimes fired Jason Blair.
"So I guess that means the NYT thinks we should stay and finish the job."
This is a news story, not an op-ed. It's reporting facts for readers.
Now, Bush thought that was leaked to the Times was not a complete picture of the report. So he declassified a summary.
And obviously he disagreed with the source qouted in the report.
But, looking at the report and what was reported in the Times, I don't see anything that is incorrect.
For Mark to say "Now that full information on the NIE is coming out, it is becoming ever more clear that the NY Times got it all wrong." with out backing it up with ANYTHING is rediculous.
And for Chuck to say that the Times story said we need to pull out of Iraq is also rediculous.
Yes, we must not 'muddy the waters' by suggesting that the NY Times was, by trumpeting the BS claim that the war in Iraq could only make things worse, not even possibly suggesting that perhaps we should stop doing that war in Iraq thing.
How dare we? Why next, I'll be claiming that if somebody keeps lecturing me about how smoking causes lung cancer, he's actually suggesting I don't pick up that cigarette.
"by trumpeting the BS claim that the war in Iraq could only make things worse"
Actually, this is not the case. It was reporting that the NIE concluded that the war in Iraq HAS made things worse.
"not even possibly suggesting that perhaps we should stop doing that war in Iraq thing."
Chuck, I already addressed this:
There are many people who believe that going into Iraq was a mistake and was a bad strategy in the war on terror, but do not advocate pulling out troops... mainly because the situation would just become worse if we left.
Thus, saying invading Iraq was a mistake and has made things worse is not the same as saying we should withdraw from Iraq. People can have the first view without having the second.
Ummm... both of the sides are twisting and spinning this report very effectively. Let's unspin things...
Un-leftitizing-
Un-rightifying it-
Basically, the report supports what I have always said about the Iraq War. We screwed things up, but the devil we do know is better than the devil we don't. Leaving prematurely will only make things harder in the long run.
Oh, and for those of you who so snippily retorted to my request for a citation... when someone attributes a statement or statements to a particular source, it is their responsibility, not that of the reader, to provide the source of that information. It was probably just an oversight on the writer's part, but the burden is the writers' to carry.
I'm just trying to keep the conversation on track, and not have it divert into false avenues.
What malarkey, Tommie--your media takes it there daily.
Thus, saying invading Iraq was a mistake and has made things worse is not the same as saying we should withdraw from Iraq. People can have the first view without having the second.
Is this how you interpreted the statement that was cherry-picked, Tommie? I never read anything in the declassified NIE that said "invading Iraq was a mistake." Show me where it says that, Tommie.
Two questions for Tommie:
1. Why do you defend blatantly obvious media bias?
2. Do you not see anything wrong with the NY Slimes printing classified leaked intelligence information.
Hold on, folks--if this asshat even bothers replying, this will be good.
One more question, Tommie, a two-parter: Are you Canadian? If not, why do you hate America so much?
Tom...I'm curious, is there a Terrorist Census?
Exactly how did any organization determine that terrorists have grown?
Also, why do you believe the gov't agencies this time, but when many of these same agencies said Iraq had WMD you say Bush lied.
Hmmmm........
The declassified NIE proves Bush is right as expected. The lefties are left with egg on their faces again. God bless you Karl Rove!
The NIE proves Bush is right?
Well, it backs up his stance that we should not pull troops out of Iraq, but at the same time, it backs up critics who say the war was a mistake.
It seems that success in Iraq right now is it not collapsing into all out civil war. Iraq's been placed, teetering on a cliff by Bush and co. If the car doesn't fall off, that's not victory, it's just disaster averted. There are many questions about Iraq's future that will determine whether is was a good thing we went in. The current analysis indicates that it has hindered our efforts in the war on terror.
Many people point to the fact that AQ has been hurt and fractured. Yes, but that is in large part because of our actions in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that Iraq has given AQ a rallying point just as they were being weakened, and its helped them morph into the scattered, loosely affiliated system it is today.