War In Iraq Increasing Terrorist Threat
We have two problems with our national security. One is the leaking of classified information to the New York Times, a crime last I knew. The other is the reporting of that classified information, knowing that it is, or was, classified information. To say that the New York Times functions as the intelligence wing of al-Qaeda is not a stretch.
The meat of this intelligence assessment is nothing new. In fact, it was predicted. On October 6, 2005, President Bush gave a major address on the war on terror and Iraq before the National Endowment for Democracy; you can read the whole thing here. A part of that speech covered exactly what this National Intelligence Estimate, that Democrats are foaming at the mouth about, said. Counting on the fact that the MSM and most on the left don't pay attention to Bush when he talks about the war, the Democrats expose it now as a big surprise and a 'see I told you so' to their vacuous position toward the war on terror. In their hatred for Bush, they have cast themselves to represent or actually advocate for 'the other side' in this war. But that was of their own doing. Can't blame that on Karl Rove.
What Bush said almost a full year ago:
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory.
Democrats use report to hit GOP over Iraq policy. Democrats on Sunday seized on an intelligence assessment that said the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat, saying it was further... [The Seattle Times: Politics]
President Discusses War on Terror
Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame.