Despite the headlines suggesting that the Iraq war has bred a new generation of terrorists, a closer reading of the NIE report reveals a mixed bag. If Iraq forms into a liberal democracy, it would be a huge demotivator for the jihadist movement.
I’m reading Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” and there’s an anecdote about how Osama Bin Laden purportedly praised America for its support of the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. However, after the Russians withdrew, Osama immediately turned his hatred to the United States. Initially it was for supporting Israel but after the Americans set up in the Arabian peninsula at the request of the Saudis, it was for occupying holy land. But really – Afghanistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia – take your pick. Andy McCarthy fills in the blanks:
Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, jihadism is attractive to tens of millions of people in what is called the Muslim world. Out of a total population of about 1.3 billion, that may not be a very high percentage (although I daresay it is higher than we like to think). But it is the ideology that attracts recruits. Grievances are just rhetoric. If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.For the umpteenth time, I going to suggest that everybody read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” about how mass movements foment hatred as a unifying agent.
Extra – From Q&O: “Those for whom the NIE assertions are not obvious on the most basic level, are no doubt completely perplexed about why so many people lined up in front of recruiting offices on 8 Dec 41.”
More – Hugh Hewitt: “The Times' reporters and editors that ran Sunday's stories were either chumps who got played by anti-Bush leakers, or purposefully deceptive agenda journalists from the anti-Bush fanatics division.” And LGF: “Dems and media are trumpeting in the latest manufactured scandal—and lo and behold, its conclusions are exactly the opposite of the New York Times’ defeatist version.”
10 comments:
If the bin Ladens did not have Iraq, or the Palestinians, or Lebanon, or Pope Benedict, or cartoons, or flushed Korans, or Dutch movies, or the Crusades, they’d figure out something else to beat the drums over. Or they’d make something up — there being lots of license to improvise when one purports to be executing Allah’s will.
Agreed.
Why, that "any excuse in a storm" attitude is almost like the indisputable need to invade Iraq because of Hussein blatantly violating UN resolutions... I mean, to deal with the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction... I mean, to spread democracy... I mean, for the benefit of Iraqi women (remember that shooting star talking point?)... I mean, to fight terrorists there before we have to fight them here... I mean, I mean, I mean...
My my my, your not capable of much nuance, are you?
Here's the difference: the Bush admin made the case from the outset that all of those reasons argued for the invasion of Iraq.
Wahhabists? They pick and choose their grievances as they go along - and then are abetted by the intellectually dishonest, such as yourself.
Don't worry - I don't question your patriotsim. No sir. I know all about it.
A Republican who does nuance? Wow, that brings back memories. And by the way, that reminds us... GET OUT!
A Republican who does nuance? Wow, that brings back memories. And by the way, that reminds us... GET OUT!
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Projection.
I'm a Democrat. I refuse to acknowledge you. That would require maturity and self-reflection.
Projecting much? Projecting much? Projecting much? Ha ha, answer THAT! And if you DO answer... projecting much?
I'd hit you with the powerful rubber-glue dichotomy next, but that one's a little too childish, even for me.
Getting back to the premise of the topic, calling the NIE report a "mixed bag" is ridiculous, either on a political level or on its content.
What we know of the report is the declassified content which is most favorable to Bush & Co. And even then, the positive spin relies on just 2 or 3 "if" sentences, talking about hypotheticals that could bolster the administration's case. (i.e. "If Iraq forms into a liberal democracy, it would be a huge demotivator." Yup, it sure might. And if Steve O. from "Jackass" wins some Nobel Prizes, he might get taken seriously.)
The rest of the NIE report (you know, the other 98%) directly contradicts the official White House storyline that things are getting better, and the official policy has been vindicated. And that's the non-hypothetical 98% that's cataloguing realities. And supposedly this, the first of two reports, is the upbeat one.
The report is a complete disaster for the GOP (although whether it costs them any votes, who knows?). Spinning it as a glass half-full, or a political ink blot with many possible readings, is a total joke. The pundits you cite can't do a thing to protect their flank on this one. Which is why they've reverted to their heavily-used "it's like World War 2!" and "the MSM got played!" shtick.
"mass movements foment hatred as a unifying agent."
Is the Democratic Party so disfunctional that it has to resort to these tactics.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/09/27/bush_blamed_more_than_clinton.html
The Gallup Poll asked whether "the primary blame" for not catching or killing Osama Bin Laden belongs to Bush, or Clinton. 53% say Bush, 36% say Clinton. That 36% is remarkably like the basement approval rating Bush cannot fall beneath.
The percentages essentially break down in the usual partisan pattern, but the good news is that independents overwhelmingly blame Bush. Better give some pep pills to Tony Snow and capable Condi! This round of lying revisionist interviews may take some time!
Remember way, way back to 2005? When the nation was turning Republican red, state by state, district by district, demographic by demographic, forever? Wheee-heeee! That was fun!
Projecting much? Projecting much? Projecting much? Ha ha, answer THAT! And if you DO answer... projecting much?
I'd hit you with the powerful rubber-glue dichotomy next, but that one's a little too childish, even for me.
See - here's the difference. You are projecting. It's not my probem to fix, but that doesn't mean I don't want to help you. I'm just nice that way. Still, you know what they say..."lead a horse to water," etc.
Post a Comment