Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Speaking of the NIE report...

Apparently the Times' leak source played them like a fiddle -- that, or they thought no one would notice. From Hugh Hewitt:

The Times' reporters and editors that ran Sunday's stories were either chumps who got played by anti-Bush leakers, or purposefully deceptive agenda journalists from the anti-Bush fanatics division.

Read all of the declassified sections of the report. Nothing in it supports the Pelosi-Dean-Reid-Murtha Democrats' demand to cut-and-run from Iraq. Just the opposite in fact: "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives."
Don't believe Hugh? Make your own decisions by reading the report yourself.

Not to snicker or anything, but...haha. The Left really shot itself in the foot on this one. When will they learn?

Update: here's the whole cause celebre statement.
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. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

9 comments:

Matt said...

I hope you're not this prickee-ish in real life. I read that report and this is what it says (something that you conveniently left out and can be interpretted many ways... it's really all semantics):

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.

If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.

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. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

That last sentence is pure speculation. I'm dealing with the evidence, you're dealing with hypotheticals. We're losing this war as it is - my educated opinion based on evidence of increasing violence and high levels of terrorist recruitment. You're hypothetical situation is, "well what IF we win the war?" Assuming that we do, which is making an assumption that contradicts the present facts, MAYBE terrorists would be less likely to continue the fight. How long will we have to wait, how many innocent people have to die, how many of our soldiers have to die and be wounded before we get to a point where MAYBE (keyword) the broad, decentralized terrorist movement decides to just give up? Peer into your crystal ball and answer me that oh wise one.

k2aggie07 said...

This is pretty hilarious. You trumpet this report as a huge win for your side before you read it. You tell me to blog on it. I do, and find that the NY Times has basically made up a piece about the report, has reported the entirely wrong conclusions, and uses snippets of sentences and phrases to support their argument.

Then you come on here and try to do the exact same thing. You can't pick and choose which parts you want to accept just because you don't agree with them.

The whole thing is semantics...its a report from a group of analysts. This is a group of experts' opinions. You can't say "oh this is hypothetical so I'm going to discount it" becuase then you have no reason to ever listen to any analyst.

Give me a break. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the NYT for hanging you and everyone else out to dry.

Matt said...

I'm not mad about anything. I looked at both sides of the argument and logically discredited the sentence in the report that you hailed as YOUR sides win. What's so funny? I don't understand... The report specifically says that the Iraq War has increased the terrorist threat globally, can you read? It's right there in print! I've been saying this forever. You have to be an extremely illogical person to not see how a war can brood resentment and hostility in an already unstable and hostile region. The only part where we disagree here is what we need to do about it. For the last time, quit being so condescending.

Matt said...

You didn't "find anything" in that report that hadn't already been thought through for you and spun by Hugh Hewitt.

k2aggie07 said...

You said: That last sentence is pure speculation. I'm dealing with the evidence, you're dealing with hypotheticals.

Unfortunately, both of us are dealing with the report. How about the sections that say:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most muslims —all of which jihadists exploit.

Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.

You're looking at one cause out of four listed. To counter that, the Iraq war specifically solved one of the problems mentioned -- namely, killing al-Zarqawi.

----
You say that you logically discredit the sentence that you don't like. I say you can't pick and choose what parts of the report you agree with.

It says Iraq (among other factors) has increased the spread of Jihad, yes. But in the very next sentence it says that if the Iraq war goes well many fighters will give up, quit, and go home.

You can't pick and choose what to agree with. Thats like saying "I'll take Newtons second and third laws, but screw the first -- I can logically discredit it."

As for the originality of my posting, I reference everything I quote. There was a whole post prior to any mention of Hugh Hewitt that came entirely from my li'l ole head. Hugh just happened to state something that 100% supported my independent analysis.

If you're going to post comments on here I'd appreciate you refraining from calling me a prick, suggesting I plagarize, or any of the other attacks you've made in this post. Its just not classy.

Matt said...

I'm sorry Kaggie... I sincerely apologize. (that is probably one of the first times I've posted here without trying to be blatantly sarcastic) You debate someone for so long and you eventually just start feeding off of each other's snarkiness, things can then get out of hand and classiness goes right out the window. I'll refrain from the name calling if you refrain from the particularly degrading style of debate that you're accustomed to.

Here is the major problem with your argument: You're blurring the line between facts and opinion. Newton's laws are just that; laws of nature that can't be bent or broken without the awesome power of a celestial object such as a black hole. I think the second line of the paragraph of the intel report that we're at each other's throats over, bears repeating once again.

SHOULD jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we JUDGE fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

--- This is speculation, not a fact, and the farthest you can possibly be from a law. Remember, scientific analysis STARTS with a hypothesis... and that's exactly what this is. Only time will tell if the hypothesis turns out to be correct. I'm not saying the possibility isn't there, all I've been saying this whole time is, take it with a grain of salt because it's speculative. I have every right to question a hypothesis. It has nothing to do with me choosing what to agree with or not because this intel report is both fact and opinion. I blogged about the fact part, you blogged about the opinion part. But not only did you choose to focus on the opinion, you chose to take it further and present it as concrete evidence that the war in Iraq is completely justified.

k2aggie07 said...

A report stating that terrorist passions around the world have been inflamed is about as far from 'fact' as can be.

The only way I can see to factually asses the danger from jihad terrorism is to ask every single potential jihad member what they think about Iraq, something which I highly doubt they did.

Matt said...

You're kidding right? Read my last 5 posts on my blog, all I've been talking about lately is how every single study indicates that the terrorist threat level has increased since 2001 and that the major catalyst for this was the Iraq War. Find me one study, just ONE that indicates the opposite. You are so stubborn it's unbelievable.

Matt said...

okay, that's an exaggeration... maybe one or two. read the safer my a#@ post. This NIE report isn't the only one indicating that iraq has made our problems worse.