Redstate

By paulseale Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In an apparent move to boost talking points and change poll momentum back toward Democrats the New York Times released parts of a classified intellegence report which claims the war in Iraq "increased terrorism."

The White House disputed the Time's interpretation of the document, calling the report "not representative of the complete document."

So, who do we believe? A news paper hell bent on taking down the Bush administration and Republicans who oppose it, or the White House who undoubtably has its own goals? My gut instincts tell me neither; but I am vastly more suspect of the New York Times because of its recent deeds which are border line treason.

This is why it is important for us to not trust media outlets who selectively release information from documents which we, the publican cannot view.

How can we trust a highly biased paper like the Washington Post, New York Times, Time or Newsweek? Especially when they are holding the information? It is for the very same reasons we cannot completely trust our government which we cannot trust these media outlets. They prevent information from reaching the public all the time. Especially when it does not meeting their political agenda.

What I do know is that terrorism strikes countries who are not involved in the war in Iraq. Whether is Germany, France, Canada, the Philipines or Australia, global terrorism is on the rise and most of those nations were not participants in the Iraq conflict in any way.

It should also note that this is the same report which told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Supposedly it is reformed to be more accurate. Again, how can we judge? My personal feeling is that there were WMDs in Iraq, however they were moved.

Lastly, we need to think about the ramifications which the Times and Democrats are trying to force upon the American public; to withdraw from Iraq in humilation and defeat.

What neither one of these institutions seems to care about is the mission or how to win. Instead of focusing time and questions about how we can win in Iraq and what tactics might be needed to address the situation, its all about pulling out.

What strikes me about the NIE report by the Times is that there seems to be no impact about withdrawl or what if we are successful in our Iraqi mission.

We already know what happens when we withdraw, our enemies become embolden and more people die. Bin Laden and terrorist around the world were embolden when we pulled out of Somolia. It taught them that they could play to our media, win a few polls and defeat a super power. The result was continued attacks during the nineties and of course, 9-11.

Similarly, Hezbollah feels very emboldened because they were able to simply survive an Isreali onslaught which was politically restrained by both media and "global tests." We should take note. I submit to you that Hezbollah learned its media manipulation lessons from how Al Qeada and other terrorist are working in Iraq.

The unanswered question I never hear asked is so what if our mission in Iraq is successful? Then what?

Thats the catch, though, isnt it. The New York Times and many in Washington do not want us to be successful. They want us to lose simply because of who is president. Never mind the consequences. Those can all be changed when the "right people" get back into power.

I believe that if our media and politicians were hell bent on finding a way to win in Iraq instead of tucking our head in our rears and leaving that we might actually have made more progess than what we do now. Terrorist, who are not stupid, would not be as so emboldened as they are now.

That, however, is a pipe dream. Today's reporters are journalist first and Americans second. To ask them to focus the who, what, when and why in a constructive manner focused on winning in Iraq would be like asking for them to help us defeat terrorist, which isnt cool with their antiwar activist buddies.

In the end it will cost America. It already has with Al Qeada adapting to our efforts because of selective leaks on classified programs. Now the focus is on American morale.

I mean, who cares about the repercussions as long as Democrats get elected and we become a nation of appeasment like Spain, right?

Update: Powerline has a good piece up with debunks a lot of the Time's piece. It also notes that the report was issued in April. So who is now releasing information for political gain, eh? My hope is that the White House has somthing to combat this, other wise the next news cycle might be ate up by what I am feeling is nothing more than a bogus hit piece.

Cross Posted from Arena of Ideas