Posted on 10/01/2006 11:03:06 AM PDT by Enchante
Some sentences in the Key Judgments contradict themselves, and some are trite (“We judge that groups of all stripes will continue to use the Internet…..”). Others are classic examples of the “on the one hand, on the other hand” syndrome. And still others are simply unintelligible – they are neither right nor wrong, but written in a way to make them subject to whatever interpretation the reader wishes to make.
No issue is more important to our country’s security than the future of terrorism, and nothing could be more helpful to the President than a clear and accurate projection of what that future is likely to be. That is what this NIE should have provided, but doesn’t.
Now you see the “secret” that the Key Judgments of this NIE inadvertently reveal – and it isn’t about Iraq or about the future of terrorism. It’s about our own intelligence service, and what this NIE has revealed is that our radar is busted. That’s frightening, and what’s even more frightening is the realization that if we know it, so too do our enemies.
Rest assured they will be looking closely to see if the President decides to just ignore his busted radar and fly by the seat of his pants – or if he decides to get it fixed.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Also, as usual, all the 'Rat leaks of sensitive info mean that people around the world who are or who might be "on our side" -- or especially those who might cooperate for money, i.e, paid intel sources -- see that we are still a sieve of leaks and will be less likely to work with us against terror.
Absolutely true. Many observers have pointed out that the left wing press concentrated on the points that might embarrass the administration. I.e., killing terrorists tends to create more of them. They neglected to mention the points that would favor the administration, i.e., that they have killed off a lot of terrorists.
The whole report is simply a CYA document. Much of it simply states the obvious. And much of it is worded so that, no matter what happens, they will not be caught saying the wrong thing. So, the whole thing might be translated: "On the one hand . . . On the other hand." All the bases are covered, in the best CYA fashion.
But, what is the point of the exercise. What do these intelligence professionals recommend that the president should DO?
You seem to have the mistaken idea that the intellegience agencies are suppose to recomment a particular course of action.....
It's what happens when a comittee of 16 organizations hammers out something they can all agree upon. Not much content there that I could see.
What I find as breathtaking, sad, disturbing and even frightening is that if anyone is living in a bubble of their own limited "intelligence" and their own isolated "stream of information" it is our national security apparatus.
There is large body of irrefutable evidence that "Al Queda" and all of its clones and copy-cats are (1)symptoms, not causes, (2)would have been created by some Islamic radical somewhere, if Osama, his clones and his copycats did not creat them, and will be continually recreated no matter what the west does or does not do (3)have their real cause and the real seeds of their motivations in an Islamic-Fascist political mindset that is (a)older than any of the terrorist groups, (b)widespread where ever Muslim communities are found (c)openly presented by Muslims who do not participate in terrorism and (d)secretly adhered to by Muslims who appear "moderate" - the world over.
That evidence demonstrates that it is the geo-politcal goals of that mindset, not any action of any western nation, that is the real, bedrock cause of all Islamic terrorism.
Blaming the west is an excuse and it is repeated to the stage of a mantra because the Islamic-Fascists know and understand the western media's love-affair with self-hatred.
The dirtiest secret about that evidence that does not get out of our Arabist controlled State Department is that there is not a dime's worth of difference, to the west and western ideals, values and interests between the political philosophy of Osama and the religious and political leaders of Saudi Arabia or Iran.
And Iran? It's current leaders represent just a Shia version of the same Wahabi/Muslim Brotherhood agenda.
Islamic terrorism exists because there is an international movement, with many self-starting and self-operating, self-contained organizations, professing various short-term goals, some appearing moderate and peaceful and some professing violence, but all professsing the absolute importance, by one means or another of Islamic world supremacy.
And, all our "intelligence" apparatus can talk about is "Al Queda" and its clones and nothing about how the Saudis and their schools, the Iranian Mullahs and the groups they fund and the greater networks of the Muslim Brotherhood are all insuring that the future generations of cannon fodder for Islamic violent jihad will continue to be created, and re-created for generations to come, by Muslims who duplicitously proclaim their "non-violence" while knowingly supporting the world-dominance Islamic agenda at the heart of the terrorists' belief system.
Our intelligence apparatus is flying blind. Its ignorance is astounding.
Of course, it depends. One purpose for regular intelligence briefings is just to keep the President up to date on what's happening in the world--anything that might be important for him to know.
But there are also specialized intelligence briefings. For instance, over a period of 40 years or so there were regular briefings on what should be done to counter the Soviet Union, both general and sometimes specific areas.
Obviously the President would want advice, from time to time, on what the Muslim terrorists are up to, and what the U.S. might best be advised to do in the short and the long term to win the war on terror.
A president may find it advantageous to get conflicting advice from different groups, so he can choose among them. Nobody tells the President what to do, but people are supposed to tell him what they think he should do, if they are asked.
Yes it is worrisome. Thank the US Congress for piling on one restriction after another. The problem did not happen over night. It took Congresses since Senator Frank Church And Rep Pike keel-hauled the CIA back in the 1970s.
I would eat XXXX before I would ever vote for a democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.