National Intelligence Estimate

New National Intelligence Estimate on the threat from al-Qaeda apparently says the threat is "persistent."

• Spencer Ackerman notes that what we're seeing declassified today is eerily silent on the invasion and occupation of Iraq's impact on jihadism.
• Rand Beers' National Security Network does some myth versus reality stuff.
• Kevin Drum deems it vacuous.
• Richard Clark says "It's more about what it doesn't say than what it does say." In particular, it doesn't say we have al-Qaeda on the run -- because we don't.

Anything else? My view is that these NIEs have started to suffer from a kind of Heisenberg Principle problem. They only constitute fodder for valid political point scoring if the authors aren't expecting them to become political footballs. Since that's clearly not the case with a report like this, it winds up having little probative value.

Comments

Here are the highlights of my own personal National Intelligence Estimate:

"Since the spring of 2006, the gross national intelligence has decreased by about 3 billion IQ points."

"A particularly steep downturns in intelligence was observed following the first publication of The Politico in January of 2007."

"Experts believe that decrease would have been even greater, if it were not for the rise in illegal immigration into this country over the past year."

"One hopeful sign of progress, which is evident from internal White House memos, is that Mr. Bush has finally learned how to spell al-Qaeda. There is no 'u'."

Posted by lampwick | July 17, 2007 3:27 PM

Matt, that is a rather loose application of the uncertainty principle. Otherwise, good point.

Posted by kciwpmal | July 17, 2007 3:33 PM

1) Look, Senator Bob Graham --Democratic Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- clearly described the situation in his book "Intelligence Matters".

Which is that the President declassifies intelligence info for public release if it supports his actions, and abuses the classification system in order to bury any info
that contradicts his claims or his actions.

Congress was hamstrung in handling this action because both Houses were controlled by Republicans
who unquestioning supported everything Bush did.
It's now hard for Democrats to unravel the damage
that Republicans did to the oversight process because (a) Republican Senators can block some actions and (b) Democrats don't have the power to pass law over the President's veto.

2) But it's the DEMOCRATS OWN GODDAMM FAULT!! Because they and President Bill Clinton allowed Porter Goss to pass the 1998 Intelligence WHistleblowers Protection Act -- which has the most Orwellian name I've ever seen.

That Law said that if a cleared US citizen sees something wrong in the Executive Branch/Intelligence Community, that citizen cannot complain to his members of COngress. (Which the Fourth Amendment should allow)

Rather , the citizen has to go to the Intel Oversight Committees -- made up of Congressmen and Senators who from the other side of the country who are NOT accountable to the citizen in the next election. But before the citizen can even approach Congress, he has tell officials of the Executive Branch that he is going to snitch on them --30 days in advance. Which runs the citizens career and plunges his family into deep poverty.

3) The only protection the people of this country has against illegal and malign acts like Iran Contra lies in the fact that the President can't do anything without the help of common citizens in the Intelligence and Military communitys. People who are patriotic.

But the Republicans --with Democratic help --have ensured that those people are gagged.

4) The Intel Committees, of course, can not do reasonable oversight without the help of those common citizens. Anyone who has dealt with the Intel Committees know that they could not pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

But do the Democrats explain this to the voters. Aside from a few brave men like Bob Graham, the answer is no.

In fact, Bush has no problem in finding Democratic has-beens like Chuck Robb to serve on Blue Ribbon Committees whose reports do more to deceive Americans than to inform.

Posted by Don Williams | July 17, 2007 3:44 PM

don wrote:

"But do the Democrats explain this to the voters. Aside from a few brave men like Bob Graham, the answer is no."

i don't think the issue is bravery so much as ignorance over what an actually functioning congress and government looks like.

i don't have any hard data to back this up but it's been widely documented at this point that the role of money in elections and government has been growing for some time. and it's been arguably the predominant factor in not only deciding who wins elections and policy debates but also who runs and what debates we get to have.

it seems to me that one of the long term effects of this is that those serving in official capacities, whether it be congress or the executive branch, are less qualified, on average, than ever before.

there are fewer meaningful debates on the floor, discussions in committee meetings, and awareness of what is actually in these bills being passed. so those few who do know, or do have an agenda, have a huge ability to affect policy and not always for the public interest.

Posted by oldmancoyote | July 17, 2007 4:47 PM

don wrote:

"But do the Democrats explain this to the voters. Aside from a few brave men like Bob Graham, the answer is no."

i don't think the issue is bravery so much as ignorance over what an actually functioning congress and government looks like.

i don't have any hard data to back this up but it's been widely documented at this point that the role of money in elections and government has been growing for some time. and it's been arguably the predominant factor in not only deciding who wins elections and policy debates but also who runs and what debates we get to have.

it seems to me that one of the long term effects of this is that those serving in official capacities, whether it be congress or the executive branch, are less qualified, on average, than ever before.

there are fewer meaningful debates on the floor, discussions in committee meetings, and awareness of what is actually in these bills being passed. so those few who do know, or do have an agenda, have a huge ability to affect policy and not always for the public interest.

Posted by oldmancoyote | July 17, 2007 4:47 PM

It's interesting that environmental groups are always singled out as "the other terror threat", but no mention of the right wing militia nuts, like the bunch in Alabama with their plan to hunt Hispanics.

As for Al Qaeda, never say never, but it seems to me they have no need to launch another attack in the US itself. The Bushies have already given them everything they want; an increasingly isolated America with a deteriorating military trapped in an expensive, unwinnable, unpopular war in an Arab country providing Al Qaeda with a propaganda weapon, and a new recruiting, training and testing ground for their real struggle; the fight for the hearts and minds of the Arab world.

That was the goal of the 9/11 attacks, and Bush fell for it.

Posted by A Hermit | July 17, 2007 5:32 PM

"Richard Clark"

Richard Clarke, actually.

Posted by Gary Farber | July 17, 2007 8:28 PM

Only an ANTI-SEMITIC TRAITOR would question the reliability of the National Intelligence Guesstimate!

Posted by Farty Peretz | July 18, 2007 1:11 AM

As for Al Qaeda, never say never, but it seems to me they have no need to launch another attack in the US itself.

Ah, don't fool yourself. Read their strategy. America is going to be exempt until they can figure out how to top 9/11. If you go from bringing down the WTC and burning up half the pentagon to pulling off piddly-ass subway bombings you are marking yourself squarely in the soon to be a footnote in history column, they know that. What AQ Khan did was massively historic, he'll be remembered. He won't be the last, the bar got moved there and I don't think people realize how far yet. The bar is going to get lowered again for making fission devices, and it'll keep getting lowered. What Iran (or any state actor) does or doesn't do is a total sidebar, give it twenty years and you will have these thing popping out of garages.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 18, 2007 1:40 AM

The use of "the Homeland" with a capital H in the report was also creepy.

Posted by josephdietrich | July 18, 2007 5:55 AM