E Pluribus Unum

At D-KOS, DemfromCT points out two important things in spinning this confirmation of what a miserable failure Bush is.  "One is that Americans really do not like to lose wars."  The other, much like the reaction from Democrats to Hugo Chavez's "Devil" speech at the UN -- he may be an idiot, but he's our idiot.  Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, Americans have great respect for the institution of the Presidency itself.

Look at the evidence so far.  This administration was given a grade of "D+" for our "efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism" from the Council on Global Terrorism, "an independent research group of respected terrorism experts."  Exactly what effect did that assessment have on the electorate's when this assessment came out?  What changes did this force upon our leadership?

I doubt the leak of this NIE will have much effect on anything either, except some bombastic screeches calling for closing down the Times from Wingnuttystan.

The release of the House Intelligence Committee's report earlier last week was largely ignored amidst partisan infighting.  It got prominent play only in the Moonie Times and the conservative outlet Newsmax.  You can guess that the report itself (approved by the GOP majority), as well as the coverage from those consistently slanted sources, was wholly uncritical of the White House, slammed the intelligence community, and hyped the terrorist threat.

The committee's report on al-Qaida, released this week, revealed that the House intelligence committee "is aware of other credible plans by al-Qaida members to attack the United States, but cannot discuss these plans in an unclassified report."

The ranking Democrat on the committee, California Rep. Jane Harman, blasted Hoekstra for releasing a report she claimed was "merely an assemblage of press clippings" and did "not represent effective congressional oversight."

Other Democrats who refused to approve the report claimed it "tells us nothing new" and suggested that Hoekstra had timed its release to coincide with the upcoming congressional elections, an accusation the Michigan Republican dismissed.

No doubt, the info that the GOP operatives wanted to remain classified was their complete and utter impotence in reducing a threat they have exasperated.  The NIE, as they are supposed to be, is something different, something beyond party agenda, something professional.  It's also telling us something we already knew.

We're losing this war.

UPDATE:  Via Obsidian Wings, the Washington Post tells us that the NIE was delivered last April.  I've lost count how many times we've heard in the last six months the outright LIE from administration officials that we're somehow safer because of George Bush and his policies.

Oh you just know that once Wingnuttystan does notice this story, they're going to insist the NY Times gets shut down for breaking it.

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

Dammit, we told them so.  The Post's article is more in depth than the announcement of the NIE's conclusion that the Iraq war has made things much, much worse for our anti-terrorism efforts.

The latest terrorism assessment paints a portrait of a global war in which Iraq is less the central front of actual combat than a unifying battle cry for disparate extremist groups and even individuals. "It is just those kinetic actions that lead to the radicalization of others," a senior counterterrorism official said earlier this summer. "Surgical strikes? Nothing is surgical about military operations. They tend to have impacts, affects."

That description contrasts with Bush's emphasis this month on offensive military action in Iraq and elsewhere as the United States' principal road to victory in the global war.

"Many Americans . . . ask the same question five years after 9/11," he said in a speech in Atlanta earlier this month. "The answer is yes. America is safer. We are safer because we have taken action to protect the homeland. We are safer because we are on the offensive against our enemies overseas. We're safer because of the skill and sacrifice of the brave Americans who defend our people."

I guess since the last NIE concerning Iraq told him that finding WMD's was a "slam dunk," the Decider thought could tell us another filthy F-ing lie and could chalk this one up to bad intel too.