Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/29/06

This page was last updated on October 1, 2006.

Political intelligence / The NIE affair further shakes the public’s trust; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 29, 2006.

The editorial expects us to believe it makes sense for the U.S. to release the contents of classified national security documents. Much of the editorial is a rehash of Tuesday’s editorial.

Nowhere in this editorial will you find the declassified NIE key judgments actually contradicted the previous editorial’s conclusions and self-described “logic.” This reminds me of the recent editorial in which Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) kept the PG from dealing with the fact it was wrong about who “leaked” the name of Valerie Wilson.

Here’s a link to a column on this subject written by the PG’s national security writer, Jack Kelly.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The affair of the National Intelligence Estimate assessment, which includes that the war in Iraq has made the United States more vulnerable to terrorism, has revealed the degree to which trust between the White House and the American people on intelligence has collapsed in recent years.”

[RWC] Regarding the comment that the NIE “includes that the war in Iraq has made the United States more vulnerable to terrorism,” please read the declassified NIE key judgments. They make no such claim. Indeed, quite a bit of the key judgments is simple logic.

“First, the report, incorporating the consensus judgment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies on America’s situation with respect to terrorism, was completed in April. Neither it nor its conclusions, indisputably of vital importance to the nation, were made available to the congressional intelligence committees by the Bush administration. Some of its contents were leaked to the press in September, five months later.”

[RWC] As I noted in the previous critique, a NY Times article appears to debunk the PG allegation that “Neither it [the NIE] nor its conclusions … were made available to the congressional intelligence committees.”

“It is also not inconceivable that President Bush might have chosen to tell the American people of the report, without revealing sources or methods, when he received it, underlining its important conclusions. He didn’t. We will assume he didn’t because the assessment that the Iraq war has made the threat of terrorism worse reflects badly in a congressional election year on his and his administration’s judgment in taking America to war.”

[RWC] And just to be fair, why not send a pre-release copy to our enemies so they aren’t blindsided? Is the PG serious?

“Now he has decided to make part of the estimate, referred to in Washington as the NIE (pronounced ‘NEE’), available. The problem is that not seeing the whole thing, and the part of it that is now available five months late, produces a problem of credibility, particularly given the bad habit of the administration to doctor or stack intelligence in the past to fit the conclusions it wishes to reach.”

[RWC] To date, every investigation has concluded the Bush administration neither pushed the intelligence agencies to predetermined conclusions nor misrepresented the intelligence data presented to it. This paragraph is simply a PG smear attempt.

“Put bluntly, once an administration chooses to politicize intelligence, the American public will no longer be inclined to see that intelligence as objective, but rather as political propaganda. That rules out Americans having any confidence that what their president tells them is intelligence, in fact, is solid intelligence.”

[RWC] Note the drive-by accusation. When did the Bush administration politicize intelligence?

If anyone is politicizing intelligence, it’s Democrats. From at least Joe Wilson in 2003 to the recent selective leaking of one sentence in a 40-page document, it’s been Democrats who have been misrepresenting – and in Joe Wilson’s case lying about – intelligence.

Indeed, at this link you’ll find a memo written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) from 2003 outlining the Democrat strategy.

“In an ideal world, where a relationship of trust existed between a president and his administration and the people, that president could give the public a picture and conclusions from intelligence he is given and have them accept it as truth without seeing the document. But with a background that now includes the absence of claimed weapons of mass destruction and of a claimed relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, that relationship of trust no longer exists, particularly with elections coming up.”

[RWC] It’s a hoot the PG writes about trust. Remember, the PG published an editorial drawing conclusions based solely on hearsay from an anonymous “American intelligence official” who violated the law by leaking a sentence from a classified national security document.

“There is probably nothing to do now except make the whole NIE public, excising only names of sources and methods. That is not ideal, since a president needs confidential, comprehensive analysis. But this president threw that away when he gave up Americans’ confidence through the lead-up and conduct of the Iraq war.”

[RWC] “[M]ake the whole NIE public, excising only names of sources and methods?” How stupid does the PG believe its readers are? In many (most?) cases, simply revealing the information implicitly reveals “names of sources and methods.” For example, if a piece of information could only have been learned by one of the participant’s in a discussion, revealing that information also reveals the source.

Even if releasing the information didn’t reveal methods and sources, why would we want to tell our enemy what we know about them? I never served in the military, but I think it’s a pretty good guess that when at war, we should keep what we know of the enemy to ourselves while trying to find out what they know about us.

As I noted in the previous critique, the PG knows the full NIE can’t be released under any circumstances.

I’ll tell you what. So the Steelers can take the high moral ground, let’s pass a law requiring the Steelers to provide their opponents with a copy of the Steelers’ scouting report on the opponent.