The New York Times has again selectively leaked sensitive national security information, this time cherry picking an April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report to support the left's template that our attack on Iraq has spawned more terrorism. In response, President Bush declassified other portions of the report to complete the picture.
If anything, on balance the report emphasizes how critical Iraq is to our ultimate victory in the war on terror. But how dare Bush defend himself?
Caught crying wolf again, Democrats have pulled a familiar trick out of their playbooks. They are demanding Bush declassify the entire document, knowing he cannot afford to comply and reveal secrets to the enemy, to create the false impression that he has something to hide. In the meantime, the national interest be damned.
Democrats pulled the same kind of stunt during Miguel Estrada's Senate confirmation hearings for the appellate bench. As one of their bogus excuses for filibustering Estrada seven times, they said the White House was not forthcoming enough about Estrada's record. So they demanded the release of intra-office memoranda Estrada had written from 1992 to 1997 as assistant solicitor general.
The White House properly refused to release the memos because it would set a dangerous precedent and have a chilling effect on the willingness of government counsel to give frank advice. All seven living former solicitors general, three having served under Democratic presidents, sent a letter to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to dissuade him from pursuing the memos. They said the memos were highly privileged and such an intrusion "would come at the cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States' litigation interests … "
But this bipartisan plea didn't deter these partisan-intoxicated senators from their bad faith mission. They would do whatever it took to block this highly qualified, honorable nominee, even if it meant damaging the national interest. If you don't detect a pernicious pattern here, you're not looking hard enough.
Just like their witch hunt against Estrada, they have been trying to discredit President Bush's justifiable invasion of Iraq, which they supported at the time. I don't suppose we'll ever hear the end of this charge that our attack on Iraq has created more terrorists.
It's understandable that they insist on dwelling in the past since they are incapable of offering any alternative policy on Iraq. But what, finally, is the point of their relentless cacophony? How does it contribute, constructively, to our policy on Iraq?