Leaking portions, or entire documents, of classified material is a disturbing trend of recent years (enemies are well able to adapt if elements are threatening or expand if other elements are not adressed or are misadressed). It demonstrates the politization of elements of the federal bureaucracy or the lack of professional competence of agency leadership.

Oops what? The “Iraq War has increased the threat of terrorism” part is a “this is what’s happened” statement. The “IF we win in Iraq, they’ll be demoralized” part is a “maybe, if, possibly” statement. If I were on a debat team, I know on which statement I’d be more comfortable hanging my hat.

And besides, as I mentioned in a previous comment, the Bob Woodward book looks like it’s going to detail how we’re NOT winning in Iraq. Sort of puts the “if, maybe, possibly” statement in a weaker light.

Bit of irony here, don’t you think? First the topic of Clinton Unloads of Faux News - asserting he’s been misrepresented and giving several concrete examples illustrating why. But the main part of the post was how misleading clips (teasers) or headlines misrepresented what really happened on the interview.

Skip to the next post, “Calling All Spinners” regarding leaking of portions of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) followed by the request for past diehard administration supporters who’ve flamed Mr. Bell in the past to engage the topic.

Then a few days later, much if the NIE was declassified and released. We noticed that following the comments regarding the worsening of the terrorist situation because of the Iraq war was another comment stating that if the US prevails it will be disillusioning to the jihadists and will weaken their position. Oops.

Before your minds jump ahead with the “yes, but” rebuttals - there have been several thoughtful commentaries in the past few days - NPR’s Dianne Rehm show among them - stating that both sides engaged in pick and choose to support their position, and the panelists did a pretty succinct job of describing how the NIE is built and how it should be interpreted.

Switch to Pres Clinton’s specifics. A few days go by. 9-11 commission report’s examined. Hmmm. Problems with a few of the charges. “Comprehensive Plan” to combat jihadists, or at the very least, bin Laden. “Firing” of Mr. Clarke. But in fairness, I can see how Pres Clinton may have viewed some documents as a “comp plan” or how Mr. Clarke was “fired/demoted.” It’s just his point of view. But there are some pretty compelling opposing interpretations.

So, back to the irony. Faux headlines regarding Pres Clinton’s Fox interview. Teaser clips. Next, excerpts of the NIE, turns out they’re also misleading (teaser clips) in the context in which they’re initially used -to make a political point.

And so it continues.

I guess all those goons who would say “You think the world would be safer with Saddam in power in Iraq” now have their answer.

(crickets chirping)

I can’t help but notice the utter lack of Bush-Lovers jumping to the defence of their perfect leader.

(crickets still chirping)

-ZW