The Case of Mr. Clueless & a Cause Celebre
September 27, 2006
Newspaper reports that the NIE report sums up Iraq as a breeding ground for jihadists and that the war in Iraq has made us less safe.
President retorts (to paraphrase): ”No, the report was wrongly summarized in an illegal leak. That’s not what it says at all!”
President asks for portion of NIE report to be declassified so that the people can learn of said newspaper’s cruel, partisan twisting of NIE findings.
Based on declassified portion, the public can read for itself: Iraq has become “the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”
Just another day in Bush’s America.
Yes, the world CAN be an awfully confusing place for those who can’t read.
Unfortunately, the NIE summary looks like he probably wrote it. I could have come up with a better threat assessment. However, he’s partially correct. The VERY next sentence (same bullet point) after the one you’ve thoughtfully quoted says:
And the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the summary was:
Why didn’t the Times lead with those items in their rush on Sunday? Here’s their headline:
Isn’t it a little irresponsible for a flagship newspaper like the NYT to try to influence public debate with incomplete information? The summary certainly does have a finding that jihadism may be increasing but there is other mitigating information within the document.
Ok, so in what instance was the NYT misleading?
I’d say that the NYT didn’t lead with those items you’ve quoted in “their rush on Sunday” because neither item trumps or contradicts the finding that the Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat. And the finding that the Iraq War Worsens the Terrorism Threat should be taken seriously not only by you, v, but by the leading administrators in denial. I consider it criminal that they are dismissing it, much in the way that they did that infamous PDB in August 2001. Remember that one?
THEY DIDN’T LEAD WITH THOSE ITEMS BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T LEAKED YET. That was the point of the declassification–to show the whole document.
Are you referring to the “bin Ladin” is threatening to attack us” memo that Bush and Condi threw in the wastebasket, over the strong protestations of Richard Clarke? Do you *really* want to start a battle on this?
You don’t think the headline was misleading in the sense that it was devoid of further, meaningful context?
Were you privy to the leak, v? No, and neither was I. And you and I both know that the point of declassification was not to “show the whole document.” The whole document, after all, wasn’t declassified.
I don’t think the headline was misleading because it was “devoid of further, meaningful context.” I don’t think it was devoid of further, meaningful content. Also, I recognize that the informed American public is already aware of the “meaningful context.” I also don’t think the headline was misleading, because the headline and the story did in fact report the NIE finding that the Iraq War makes us less safe in providing a “cause celebre for jihadists.”
What is your basis for calling it misleading? You’ve thus far failed to prove your point. Prove it, or move on. Until now you’ve done nothing but demonstrate an irrational dislike for the NYT.
Yes, I’m referring to that PDB - you know, the one Bush was too busy to pay much attention to as he practiced his golf game. I’m not sure which *battle* you are promising here; are you going to tell me that the PDB didn’t exist? That our knowledge of it is “devoid of meaningful context”? Or that the Bush administration was active in “chasing down the terrorists” in his first 8 months in office? Try me. Yep, that one. The PDB that came to life on 9/11. Precisely. That one. Bring it.
B, would you please re-read my 12:48pm post? The original headline suggests ONLY that Iraq has spurred more jihadism (which it has). Yes, that was in the report. When one goes to read the report, the very FIRST sentence they read is how we’ve been successful in beating down such jihad. Then the next sentence after the leaked sentence says that a defeat of these jihadis in Iraq will take the wind out of anything we’ve inflamed with Iraq. That is meaningful context.
PDB–you’re smoking crack. Zac & I have already talked about this and other things. Read the 9/11 report, the NIE’s, and the Senate Assessments in their entirety before you make any other ignorant remarks.
I’m smoking crack, eh? So was I hallucinating on 9/11 and in the weeks after when I was literally inhaling dead people? Was it Condi herself who invented this fictitious PDB? Jeez, she, the 9/11 commission, and others must have been living it up and smoking the crack off camera.
I did read your 12:48 post and I responded to what you wrote. I very clearly see what you are trying to convince me of but refuse to buy the garbage spin that you’re parroting in the style of Tony Snow.
Ok, let’s NOT have a reasonable debate about this stuff, and let’s let disproved speculation determine our discussion. Is that your version of enlightened debate?
That’s nobody’s opinion but mine, and the original NYT piece was a political hit piece designed to hurt Bush. The classified info was six months old–why leak it right before the election? Don’t they have any National Guard papers to forge? You fret about these zany Christians undermining a perfectly good judeo-christian state but turn a blind eye to actual subversion when it happens right under your nose, by your own bible.
“disproved speculation”? Sorry v, I can’t read your mind. What are you talking about exactly? And what happened to that “battle” you were promising? I thought (naively) that you were implying that you would be presenting me with some argument or opinion of some kind, but instead I was presented with this muddled diatribe.
Were you a fan of CNN’s “crossfire” by any chance?
Seems as though you’re only interested in spitting out hyperbole and ad hominems. When you want to debate, let me know.
You write: “the original NYT piece was a political hit piece designed to hurt Bush.”
Next time the NYT reports on an NIE report, I’ll remember that the conspiratorial NYT people commissioned the NIE to write their conclusions and that people like Maureen Dowd have personal access to classified info. Right. Great logic. You’re a maverick just on the verge of surpassing Coulter. Kudos.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to ponder the possibility that someone in our nation’s intelligence sector thought that what was leaked needed to be leaked? Or was Paul Krugman lurking undetected in Arlington Va and reading unclassified documents?
Why leak the ’cause celebre” indictment before an election? I can think of a few good reasons, beginning with THE IRAQ WAR IS A TOTAL FAILURE.
But now that we’re pondering pre-election tactics…Hmmm…. let me ask… why start announcing unsubstantiated “imminent terror” in August 2004? “Threats to the Lincoln Tunnel.” “We must shut down half of Manhattan.” “They’re going to blow up the Citibank building” etc etc etc. Funny how the supposed “threats” multiplied on the eve of the 2004 presidential election. Funny how after the election those supposed threats were buried and never discussed again. Maybe you don’t remember that. Your town, after all, is a highly unlikely terror target.
Seriously, man, it troubles me that you spend so much energy getting pissed off at the New York Times. Wouldn’t it make more sense to get worked up about the mismanagement of our country?
By the way, the only Bible I read is the King James version. Thus, I have no idea which ‘bible’ you are confusedly referring to in your last post. So far, the Old and New Testaments in my possession have made no mention of an NIE report or the historical madness that has been G.W. Bush’s presidency, but as I’ve implied elsewhere, I find that Exodus makes for particularly good reading.
You made an unproveable accusation . If you want to talk conspiracy theories, let’s begin with Sandy Berger’s pants. Cite some real data or don’t play. I can trust that you’re saavy enough to scan this website and see who’s at least providing some background on their arguments and who’s making the drive-by hits.
What’s wrong with the old Crossfire show?
You acknowledge that the Times can be biased but its up to the readers to use their own cognitive skills. Well, duh! Now that we’re past that–why would the NYT find it necessary lead the charge in printing six month old information? Why the sudden urgency? Is that just bias or is it intentionally misleading?
Anyone can accuse the administration of inventing events before an election & an honest plaintiff will use evidence to support the claim (not more accusations). Where are your patriot leakers here? Wouldn’t one of them have noticed an intentionally bogus threat? Have any more drive-bys?
My town is not a likely target but my father’s entire family lives and works in NYC and have since the 1890’s. I have also lived and worked there in past lives and continue to visit customers there (even in the Citibank building!). I’ve mentioned elsewhere that my cousin was nine-months pregnant when she had to evacuate the WTC from the 90-something floor.
Don’t trivialize these things.
“You made an unproveable accusation . If you want to talk conspiracy theories, let’s begin with Sandy Berger’s pants. Cite some real data or don’t play.”
Why don’t you cite which of my statements you claim is an “approvable accusation” and then I’ll respond. Until then, I STILL CAN’T READ YOUR MIND. To what are you referring?
Crossfire… hmm, v, if you don’t like when newspapers lean a certain way and appreciate “balance” I can’t for the life of me figure out why you would defend Crossfire. It was nothing but hacks in suits sparring with spin BUT NEVER WITH ANY NUANCE.
“why would the NYT find it necessary lead the charge in printing six month old information?”
Well, v, an obvious and likely explanation seems to be that they didn’t get this leak six, four, or two months ago. Duh.
Irregardless of timing, it is not misleading to go to print about an NIE conclusion that really does exist on paper. Where, monsieur, is the deception? And, geez, you want to know where ‘the sudden urgency’ came from. I don’t know what world you live in, but news organizations typically report on the news when they get it. Let us not forget that they all compete to get the word out first and to have “exclusive stories.” Are you an anti-capitalist now too?
I suggested that the admin made up terror threats pre-election 2004. Well, honey, you can’t fight them with “there is no threat, there is a threat,” WHEN THE ADMIN WAS PURPOSEFULLY VAGUE WHENEVER THEY ATTEMPTED TO SHUT DOWN MANHATTAN IN THOSE DAYS. THEY NEVER GAVE ANYONE DETAILS ON THEIR FABRICATIONS PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE FABRICATIONS. How do you whistle blow that?
Re: NYC. My point is not to trade one another as to who has more claim to potential terrorist tragedies. My point is to say… it’s easy for you to get off on the Bush admin’s manipulation of terror when it does not needlessly upend the city you live in. Glad your family is ok. Having said that, I would have to ask you to do the same: don’t trivialize these things. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Code Orange or Red or whatever in August 2004 was phoney bologna. There’s quite a difference.
B, you brought it up. . re: the way Condi/Bush didn’t react to the PDB.
Crossfire was a true debate show — I used to watch it from about ‘92 on (with WF Buckley and Michael Kinsley). Sure, it was tough to watch spinners debate but it was, well, debate! Didn’t lack nuance, just lacked depth due to commercial constraints.
It’s not clear when the leak actually happened over the weekend but it’s not likely to have happened just over this weekend. That the NYT (and WaPo) nearly simultaneously publish the leaked details suggests that the information has been available for some time. The true problem is that somebody leaked classified material–again.
If the Times published a story called “Hurricane Coming!” but no other details, you’d pretty much assume the storm was coming your way. But a day later, they follow up with some more context–the hurricane is headed for Africa. Now, nothing in the article is false, but the earlier headline let you to come to a conclusion that was not necessarily well formed. What is so hard to understand about that?
Sorry you have such a hysteria about threat levels. Nothing I can do to help.
Are you trying to tell me that you “watched Crossfire BEFORE IT WAS COOL”? Wow, I’m impressed. I bet you liked Pearl Jam before everyone else too.
Ok, now I know what you’re talking about. You promised me a battle but instead spewed garbage. Do you have something to tell me about Bush’s first 8 months in office, or about how ignored the terrorist threat? If so, bring it. Otherwise, stop the empty claims and the ad hominem blanks.
What is so difficult to understand about your analogies and comparisons TIME AND AGAIN is that they never work. Your hurricane nonsense does not merit further comment than that. I suspect you are suffering from “NYT envy.” Don’t worry, v, you’re not alone in that.
There’s a difference between hysteria and disgust. Here, I’ll lay it out for you. I expressed disgust that the White House would manipulate public fears and partially shut down and overburden a city that already suffered on 9/11 IN AN EFFORT TO seduce and frighten voters. You, on the other hand, are hysteric about the NYT. There’s your vocab lesson for the day. Enjoy.
I can confirm that. Vince loves him some Ed Vedder…the early stuff only! -C ‘don’t call me daughter’ F.
NOBODY DID ENOUGH BEFORE 9/11 so the argument is pointless. And Pearl Jam has ALWAYS sucked. And Tucker Carlson is pretty-faced idiot.
Ok I will end this thread with a quick summary of the day’s events. Then we can go get a soda.
In this and other posts:
Something tells me you don’t get to hear a lot of different viewpoints in them there parts.
Vince, I believe that you are more “troubled” than Iraq could ever be.
Screw soda, it’s time for a beer.
At last, a statement that I can agree with.