| Retired Admiral Mike McConnell who currently serves as the President's Director of National Intelligence recently released the July 2007 Intelligence Report, "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland." The Report says that Al Qaeda is getting better organized and is more determined to launch some type of catastrophic attack in the U.S. that will cause massive loss of life, political upheaval and economic calamity using chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological materials. It says that the war in Iraq has become a very effective recruiting tool for Al Qaeda uniting extremists coming to Iraq from the Middle East, North and South Africa in an alliance against the West. McConnell, who served as the Chief Intelligence Officer for General Colin Powell in the first Gulf War, has been sent forth by the Bush administration to the media and the Sunday talk show circuit to explain contradictory statements that both he and the administration have made regarding the state of terrorism in Iraq and the threat to the U.S/To make the case for supporting the war, President Bush quoted the N.I.E. Report issued in March of 2006, stating that Al Qaeda was severely weakened, on the run and was not a substantial threat to the U.S. homeland which directly contradicts the current N.I.E. Report which states that Al Qaeda is now better positioned to attack the West than at any point since 9/11. Admiral McConnell, as documented by Stephen Hayes in his book "Cheney: The Untold Story of the Nation's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President," was himself critical of the Bush administration, criticizing the run-up to the war a result of the politicization of intelligence. He posited that the Bush strategy was that whenever you didn't like the answer, you got rid of the messengers and hired others who would give you the answers that you desired. Republican Senator Kit Bond from Missouri further added that we have yet to recover from the problems and mistakes created by neo-con Paul Bremer and that our Iraqi war strategy has amounted to nothing more than "playing whack a mole" ever since. The attempts to explain away the contradictions have been feeble at best. Is it getting better or is it getting worse? Who must take the weight for the increase in terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and for the fact that Bin Laden continues to elude capture while leading the resurgence of Al Qaeda? The Bush administration and the N.I.E. have put the blame squarely on the back of his "personal friend" Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf is in a pitched battle for his own political survival in Pakistan. Terrorist attacks and suicide bombings have steadily increased from extremist elements within his country; and he is also being challenged by centrist/leftist coalitions who are calling for democracy. The Supreme Court in Pakistan may rule that Musharraf himself may rule that the Constitution says that he is not eligible to run for another term in office. And most of all, Musharraf has not been able to come to terms with the tribal leaders who rule vast regions of the country. His failure to come to terms with tribal leaders in North Waziristan, the area where (most speculate) Osama Bin Laden is hiding and what has served as the base for the resurgence of Al Qaeda, has resulted in the area being off limits to Pakistan's military forces. The result has been, as noted by N.Y. Times Columnist Maureen Dowd, is that "while the administration lavished billions on Pakistan, including $750 million in a rising attempt to win 'hearts and minds' in the tribal areas where Al Qaeda leaders are hiding and training, President Musharraf has helped create a quiet mountain retreat, a veritable terrorism spa, for Osama and Ayman al-Zawahri to refresh themselves and get back in shape." The Bush administration continues to insist on moving forward with the current "surge" strategy even as reports come in contradicting the level and degree of success and failures of the policy. The "fish or cut bait" deadline for the surge was supposed to be September 2007. The goal posts are now being pushed back by Bush and his Generals as there is now talk about moving the date to November 2008. The Republican strategy is clear. Given the growing opposition to the War and the failed attempts at snuffing out terrorism, posit that the surge strategy is working and that with a bit more time; i.e., sufficient time to get the Republicans through the 2008 election cycle -- the violence will cease and the Iraqi government and military can take over for the U.S. and the dwindling remaining Coalition forces. The Democratic response was to sponsor an all-night debate last Tuesday in the Senate. And while they lost the vote to establish an end date for the Iraqi war 52 to 47 (with 4 Republicans joining them), they effectively called the question by forcing the Republicans to be on the record for the support of the war. They must go further than this and it appears that they will attempt to do so thanks to the bold leadership provided by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. Feingold has criticized the Bush administration for its assault on the Constitution, dubbing Cheney as the worst V.P. in U.S. history and criticizing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for lying, the politicization of his office and mismanagement. Feingold has indicated that he will sponsor a resolution calling for the censuring of the President and the Vice President for their roles in getting us into this war on false pretentions; for being unprepared to properly conduct the war; for war crimes including the torturing of prisoners; and for the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens. It will be interesting to see how many of his Democratic colleagues, those in the Republican minority -- particularly those who are running for office -- lend their support to his resolution. |
| The Literary Divide/Dr. Paul Barrows National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) Report illustrates contradictions in Bush Iraqi/Terrorist policies |
 |