Is She Omniscient?

Based on this Pelosi quote, I'd say that she thinks that's possible. Here's the quote I'm refering to:

"Media reports last weekend disclosed a consensus judgment of senior officers from across the intelligence community that the war in Iraq was having a serious negative impact on our efforts against terrorism. Rather than reducing the number of terrorists worldwide and lessening the motivation of terrorists to attack the United States, the war in Iraq is having precisely the opposite affect."

First, how does Ms. Pelosi know that the information leaked is "a consensus judgment of senior officers across the intelligence community" without having reviewed its contents? Secondly, how does Ms. Pelosi know that the NIE says that the Iraq war is "having a serious negative impact on our efforts against terrorism" without reading it? Is Ms. Pelosi now at the stage that she believes every negative thing she hears about the Bush administration without demanding verifiable truth? The answer to that last question lies in Ms. Pelosi's next quote:

"These conclusions are reportedly contained in the National Intelligence Estimate published last April. They are precisely the professional judgments that should have informed our debate through the spring and summer on the situation in Iraq and the best way to go forward. Sadly, they did not and President Bush has left the public with the false impression about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism."

When Ms. Pelosi admits that "these conclusions are reportedly contained in the National Intelligence Estimate published last April", she's admitting that she's attacking President Bush without firsthand knowledge. In fact, she's admitting something far worse: that Democrats use leaks from within the intelligence community to attack our President on the most important issue of our time solely for political purposes.

I suggest that voters consider how that Democratic tactic impacts our ability to fight terrorists. How can you trust a political party to keep you safe if their only apparent goal is to score political points? If that doesn't frighten you of the consequences of a Democratic majority, then you'd damn well better wake up to the dangers we're facing.

The indispensable Jack Kelly sheds some much-needed light on the subject:

The headline said:

"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat," but that's not exactly what reporter Mark Mazzetti said in his story. Here's his lead paragraph:

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

Mr. Mazzetti indicated he hasn't seen the NIE himself, but is reporting on what his sources have told him is in it. But people who leak classified information have agendas, and that agenda rarely is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Alas, that rarely is the agenda of New York Times reporters either, when they have a story they think will embarrass the Bush administration.

Yesterday, I said that this information wasn't reliable because leakers had anti-Bush administration agendas. I'm more confident in that belief now that Jack Kelly, one of the premier national security columnists around, is saying exactly the same thing.

If given the choice of trusting Jack Kelly's thoughtful observations or Ms. Pelosi's emotion-filled diatribes, I'll choose Mr. Kellly's observations every time without hesitation. Jack's column is must reading for serious people.

---

Posted Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:23 PM

August 2006 Posts

Comment 1 by Chris at 26-Sep-06 06:27 PM

http://jeffersonianreview.blogspot.com/2006/09/published-despite-rhetoric-bachmann.html