i just don't see how anyone in the media originally missed this part of the excerpt from the National Intelligence Estimate, since it was in the first paragraph. here's a reading comprehension exercise for them. see if you can figure out what this means, ladies and gentlemen of the press. full text here(pdf).

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al- Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

there's no way that our counterterrorism efforts have been effective. after all, we have been so distracted by the iraq war that we have forgotten about al-Qa'ida. right? if you want to accept the NIE report, then you might want to look at everything it says, including the parts that support the President's view of the war on terrorism. there is good news and bad news in these Key Judgments which have now been declassified. the analysis that we have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations is something that the media wants to gloss over. that is a positive thing...and we need to acknowledge any ground that we have gained in this war on terror.

there is still work to be done. as this excerpt points out, jihadists are adapting to our counterterrorism measures. we need to be continually re-assessing strategy and adapting to new enemy tactics. our vigilance in this area should remain constant, no matter which party controls congress or the white house.

it goes on to suggest that "Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit..." what kind of responsive political systems would promote this greater pluralism? democracy could be one of those systems. it doesn't necessarily have to be of a jeffersonian stripe. any system that allows for individual rights and freedoms would have the desired effect. while i am not completely sold on the democracy project, i don't see the current alternatives as ones that will allow Muslim countries to achieve this greater pluralism.

more from the NIE Key Judgments:

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti- American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

it's a positive sign that jihadists are less organized and that they don't have a global master plan right now. these are simply predictions, and not statements based on what has already occurred. maybe the classified part has the factual basis for these predictions, but it isn't in this document. that said, it does make sense to predict that when terrorist groups are more spread out, it will be harder to track them down. that's a no-brainer to me. no news here. move on.

now to the part that has the left beside itself with excitement:

• 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. (but wait, there's more!)Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
• 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.

let's talk about those four underlying factors. entrenched grievances existed in the middle east and elsewhere before the wars in iraq and afghanistan. some are real. some are imagined. whatever the case may be, those grievances can't solely be blamed on the war in iraq. of course jihadists are drawn to iraq. if they suffer a defeat in iraq, it's a huge loss for the whole terrorist/jihadist movement. progress does need to be made with social, political, and economic reforms, but it's going to be a slow process, and i don't know how much we can do to expedite that process. the jihadists aren't totally stupid (although they may be hung up on that 72 virgins thing). whatever motivation they can use to encourage public sentiment their way, they will use.

it is insanity to expect that there is something we can do to make the jihadists like us or to make them stop killing innocent people. we can't accommodate their desire to convert everyone to islam, and we cannot appease their militant tendencies. the only answer is to thwart their plans by any means necessary. both republicans and democrats must be committed to fighting this enemy, because the jihadists are not going away.

tags: NIE, iraq, war on terror, jihadists

originally posted here at organized chaos:

those of you who have been reading this blog for a few months know that i have supported the idea of massachusetts governor mitt romney running for president in '08 from the beginning. i like the fact that he has reduced the size of government in massachusetts. his message also appeals to me. i think that a message that speaks to issues of concern to many americans, including education, health care, and the necessary reform of social services, is the right one for republicans to adopt. i'm glad romney is talking about these things, and i hope that the message will be copied by other republicans who want to be our next president.

i like romney. have i been clear enough about that? however, i think his conflicting views on abortion are going to end up being a stumbling block for him on the road to the republican nomination.

the following exchange took place between governor romney and chris wallace on  fox news sunday.

WALLACE: You have come under fire for allegedly flip-flopping on the issue of abortion. You've faced questions about that, so let's talk about that today. When you were running for governor of Massachusetts back in 2002, you said -- and let's put it up on the screen -- "I believe women should have the right to make their own choice."

But now that you're considering a race for president, you say you're a pro-life governor who wishes the laws of the nation could reflect that view. Governor, why the change?

ROMNEY: Well, we had a major issue in Massachusetts, and it surrounded stem cell research. I spent a lot of time talking with people scientific in background as well as religious and spent a lot of time understanding when it was that as a society we needed to respect human life and came to the conclusion that it's time to be very clear on that, that when conception occurs that human life has begun.

I'm not talking about religious definitions, but scientific definitions -- and that to respect human life, we have to do so from conception. And therefore, I indicated I am pro-life and will respect the rights of human life.

WALLACE: But I don't understand, Governor. I mean, the stem cell question, which often deals with the question of harvesting of eggs or fetuses to be used for stem cell -- that isn't why most women get abortions. I mean, there's a division there, isn't there?

ROMNEY: Well, there is a division there, and I'm happy to talk about stem cell research.

WALLACE: Well, no, but I'm asking about abortion. I mean, the vast majority of women aren't getting an abortion so that they can sell their fetus.

ROMNEY: No, this is about when respect for life begins and when we as a society -- and I believe fundamentally in a society there has to be respect for human life.

And when I ran for governor, I said very clearly I do not support abortion, I do not favor abortion, but I will maintain a moratorium on any change in the laws of Massachusetts relating to abortion.

One of the big issues in our race was whether there was going to be a reduction in the age of parental involvement in abortion from 18 to 16. I said no, no change in abortion laws. But I didn't call myself pro-life or pro-choice. But after...

WALLACE: But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins -- this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years -- in the last three years?

ROMNEY: Chris, what I'm saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said -- and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life.

I've never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don't favor abortion. I wouldn't change the laws as governor because I believe each state should have the right to make their own choice. But I'm very firmly pro-life.

i don't think romney had a very strong answer to chris wallace's questions about abortion. there are some things in his record that he can't gloss over by talking about his views on stem cell research. romney has the inconvenient problem of trying to survive politically in a hard-core democratic (some might even say a  liberal) state. i guess i could see the necessity of occasional compromises, but an issue like abortion is something that a governor who wants to be president should have decided one way or the other. the theory that the next republican nominee will most likely be pro-life seems logical to me, and it makes sense that romney would want to position himself that way.

there's some contradictory evidence that romney may not be "firmly pro-life" as he says. it's hard to distance yourself from supporting the legalization of RU-486, the abortion-inducing drug. he also has made past statements, in which he says that he is personally opposed to abortion, but that he would not attempt to change the laws of massachusetts to reflect that belief. that might be a hard sell to many in the pro-life community.

romney's position that the states should decide on whether abortion should be legal or not sounds reasonable to me, but i'm not sure it will satisfy his critics on this issue. it's possible to change your mind on abortion. i just hope that romney's "firmly pro-life" position is genuine, and not a position taken for political advantage. i would like to believe that it is genuine. we will see what other pro-lifers think closer to the '08 election.

related:

Romney reaches out to party’s evangelical base--the state (SC)
Romney Touts Conservative Credentials in S.C.--chris cillizza's politics blog (washingtonpost.com)

here's an excerpt of what president bush said in his november 11th, 2005 speech:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

let's look at what some prominent democrats had said in the past about iraq and WMD's, shall we? (credit to sister toldjah in this post.) any italics are my addition. :)

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

what they are saying now:

Sen. Levin:(from the weekly standard blog) "The intel didn't say that there is a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq," he said in an appearance on Fox News on February 2, 2004. "That was not the intel. That's what this administration exaggerated to produce."

also: "But, as a matter of fact, when you look at the statements of the administration prior to the war, over and over and over again the basis that was used is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction - not programs, not intentions, not hopes - has weapons of mass destruction in his possession and could use them against us at any time and could hand them up to terrorists." from the original FNC transcript from that february 2nd appearance.

interesting, but i'm confused. didn't senator levin say something similar to what the administration said in the beginning? let's look at it again. he says that saddam is building WMDs and the means to deliver them. that sure sounds like an allegation of a program or an intention to me.

in response to a question about why he voted to kick saddam out of kuwait when there was a known threat and why he voted to kick saddam out of iraq when there may not have been a threat, here's what Sen. Kerry had to say:

Sen. Kerry: (interview with Chris Wallace on FNC quoted here--external link to FNC transcript n/a) "Now, I'm happy to answer that. I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country."

"With respect to this time, I voted to give the authority to the president to use force under a set of promises by the president as to how he would do it: build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises."

now, i don't see anything in the previously quoted statement that puts any conditions on his vote. maybe he did put all these conditions on his vote. if he had these conditions for war before he started running for president, then i would be willing to correct the record on this and post it in this space. as to his first point, the international coalition was larger for Bush 43 than Bush 41. saddam thumbed his nose at numerous resolutions. as far as the war as a last resort? well, apparently john kerry doesn't believe his own statements about saddam. if he did, then he could logically find a legitimate reason to go to war.

just read the above quotes and compare to current rhetoric. make up your own mind about the president is just a flame-thrower at the democrats, or whether what he says about democrats rewriting history has some ring of truth to it.

tags: saddam, WMD, democrats

I don't support Gingrich for the Republican nomination. I do support his candidacy because I think that he will sharpen up the other candidates and force them to make compelling, thoughtful, and well-thought out arguments on the issues of the day. Newt is a smart guy. He may not be as smart as he thinks he is. That doesn't mean that he can't contribute positively to the race for the '08 Republican nomination. He has good ideas that the next Republican nominee would be wise to adopt.

We are quite familiar with the weaknesses of Newt gingrich. His fierce partisanship. His hard-headedness. His love of hearing himself speak. The inability to successfully complete the Republican revolution of small government, more accountability, and so forth. It certainly doesn't help him that he is a very polarizing figure, much like Hillary Clinton, and could find it difficult to find that groundswell of support that he would need to make a successful run to the Republican nomination. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't make the attempt.

Understanding of foreign policy should be an important factor when choosing the next presidential nominee, especially on the Republican side. We can no longer write this off as peripheral to other issues like jobs, healthcare, and the economy, especially not in light of recent events. We need to know where our potential nominees stand on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and their suggestions on resolution. Of course, there is the conventional wisdom that suggests that there will never be Mideast peace, no matter how many UN resolutions there are and no matter how much territory Israel is willing to give up. There sure is a compelling case for that POV, but a good start to peace would be completely wiping out Hezbollah. There is no way to negotiate with countries or terrorists whose goal is to wipe your country off of the face of the earth…as Hezbollah and Iran have said about Israel.

Anyway...back to Newt. Fox News loves Newt. He's a great interview. He also understands the world we live in today, and the threat we face with terrorism. His history background gives him a unique perspective on world events, and it also gives him an edge when discussing foreign policy that none of the other potential nominees can demonstrate. (*maybe McCain and his Vietnam service might be the exception to this*.) McCain, Allen, and Romney have said all the right things, but it's Gingrich who has been controlling the debate from day one. This is not only true about the current situation in Israel, but on just about every political topic generating buzz in the media world.

The PR blitz is working in Newt's favor. It might even make people forget the way his political career ended the first time. We want someone who can show leadership. We want someone who understands what's going on with this country and the rest of the world. The most appealing thing about Newt is that he is willing to put himself out there and say what needs to be said, and suggest alternatives and a slight course correction from the Bush administration. We need someone who is willing to fight for everything he believes in...and that's where he differs from President Bush.

Newt also has some great ideas about domestic policy and shrinking government that should be adopted by any serious Republican nominee. I love his ideas and absolutely encourage him to run for President. That said, I don't see how he can win the nomination or the presidency. but what do I know? :)

(Disclaimer: In case you were wondering, no...I don't work for the Newt campaign right now, but i would definitely consider it if he officially announced his candidacy.)

tags: Newt Gingrich, '08 election

This linked article is long but it's a message rarely heard by today's politicians, whether liberal or conservative. I'll post a couple quotes from it here, but the whole thing is totally worth reading. Here's the first of two --

"By observing the progress of mankind, we can see that the things that are good for everyone are the things that have increased the accountability of the individual, the respect for the individual and the power of the individual to master his own fate. Judaism gave us laws before which all men, no matter their rank, stood as equals. Christianity taught us that each person has intrinsic worth, Newt Gingrich and Pat Schroeder included. The rise of private enterprise and trade provided a means of achieving wealth and autonomy other than by killing people with broadswords. And the industrial revolution allowed millions of ordinary folks an opportunity to obtain decent houses, food and clothes (albeit with some unfortunate side effects, such as environmental da mage and Albert Gore)."

In America, you succeed or fail by your own hand. If we all came to grips with that concept, we wouldn’t require the government to take care of us. After all, it is OUR money that the government takes to finance all these bloated, ineffective social programs. If we truly realized this, we would junk this idealistic bent for the government to provide everything for everybody.

More P.J. --

"Government is an abstract entity. It doesn't produce anything. It isn't a business, a factory or a farm. Government can't create wealth; only individuals can. All government is able to do is move wealth around. In the name of fairness government can take wealth from those who produce it and give wealth to those who don't. But who's going to be the big Robin Hood? Who grabs all this stuff and hands it back out? (Remember: even in a freely elected system of government, sooner or later that person is going to be someone you loathe. If you're a Republican, think about Donna Shalala; if you're a Democrat, think about Ollie North.)"

Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. In the free market, everybody benefits. Everybody gets a slice of the pie. The producers of the wealth always end up with more than those who sit on their couch and play Xbox all day. The government cannot fix this. That's just the way it is...and exactly how it should be.

Technorati Tags: P.J. O'Rourke, government

Senator George Allen of Virginia could possibly be the Republican nominee for president in 2008, beating out Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. I'm not sure this is the best pick for the Republicans. He is charming and personable, and he says what conservatives want to hear. He did vote against the Senate amnesty bill, and that's a huge point in his favor. He seems to take a hard line on Iran, and echoes the president's views on just about everything. Even though he is the former governor of Virginia, I don't see him as the kind of leader that this country needs. We need a person who can be tough with foreign dictators and tyrants, and who can effectively defend his policies to the people and to the press. I just don't see Allen this way.

Allen is allowing the other contenders, including Newt Gingrich, to control the debate on foreign policy issues. This shouldn't happen if he really wants to be president. His attempts so far haven't convinced me that he does want that job. He has made the obligatory stops and pressed the right flesh, but that's not enough to make a person worthy of the presidency.

Senator Allen has disappointed me. While I will say that the "macaca" comment reaction was overblown, I still don't like the way he initially handled the situation. I am also concerned about his previous association with the CCC, as mentioned in the Nation. Yeah, it's a liberal rag, but assuming the picture they have is not photoshopped, that's a serious allegation they are making about him. I don't think that Allen is a racist, but I think his affinity for all things Southern, including Confederate flags, could be a problem for him in '08.

The biggest concern I have about Allen is that he seems to have similar weaknesses to our current president. I don't think that Allen has the gravity of a Mitt Romney or John McCain, or even Rudy Guiliani. I don't know how he would react when confronted with a major crisis like Katrina or any kind of escalation in Iran or North Korea. I'm sure that he was a competent governor, and is equally skilled in the ways of the Senate, but I can't see him as president. Maybe that will change.

tags: George Allen, '08 election

Crossposted at Organized Chaos