The NIE: sections the New York Times censored

In upholding its rich tradition of censorship and national-security-damaging disclosures, the New York Times this week tried again to dent the GOP. The Times cherry-picked a few bits and pieces of the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) document to portray the war on Iraq as inciting more terrorism.


The NIE was released last April. It was a classified document. Tiny portions of it were leaked in, this, the stretch run of an election season -- in violation of dozens of laws -- as a tacit endorsement for Democratic candidates. We're still waiting for a single Times article that reveals an enemy plot, by the way.


The Times' key takeaway? Don't fight terrorism, 'cause fighting terrorists only makes 'em mad. So don't tick 'em off! Retreat... and hope they go away.


No mention of how fighting Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq is somehow not related to fighting Al-Qaeda-in-the-rest-of-the-world. Or how Musab al-Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war, will lead more terror attacks now that he's in stable condition in Hell.

President Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, said it bluntly on Tuesday:

...They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? ...

Now that it's been declassified, I urge you to download your own copy of the entire NIE and peruse it at your leisure. Courtesy of the In from the Cold blog, here are some highlights you won't read in the Times:

* US efforts have, "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations."

* "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse."

* "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight."

* "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq."

* "There is evidence that [the terrorists'] violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims."

* "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit."

Funny. I don't recall seeing those statements in the Times, the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to appear, either. Unless you're being driven around on Martha's Vineyard by Teddy Kennedy.


Vote Republican.


Slam-dunk reads:
HotAir: Karzai responds to reporter’s question about terrorism
In from the Cold: More of What You Won't Read in the NYT
RUA: A Pretty Sad Commentary
RWNH: Declassified NIE leaves unanswered questions
SWLIP: Journalists assume that you are stupid
Wizbang: National Intelligence Estimate Key Judgements Released