Who or What To Believe

New Terrorism National Intelligence Estimate Released •

Experts: Unclassified Report "Pure Pablum," Hides Truth By Brian Ross ABC News
Tuesday 17 July 2007
Intelligence analysts and the former White House counterterror official describe as "pure pablum" the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate released today on terror threats to the United States.
"Nothing in here is going to surprise anybody who's been following this," said one senior U.S. intelligence official.
"It's more about what it doesn't say than what it does say," says Richard Clarke, the former White House official who is now an ABC News consultant.
"What is left out of the version released publicly is the explicit statement that al Qaeda is back and has operations underway," Clarke says.
The 2006 version of the National Intelligence Estimate claimed U.S. efforts had "seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations."
"That's no longer the case in 2007, and you have to read between the lines to understand how we have lost ground," Clarke says.
The current White House counterterrorism official, Fran Townsend, the assistant to the president for homeland security, told reporters today, "Al Qaeda is weaker today than if we had not taken strong action against them."
She said she would not address still-classified aspects of the intelligence estimate that al Qaeda had regained strength at levels not seen since before the 9/ll attacks.
The Blotter on ABCNews.com reported last week that senior law enforcement and intelligence officials had "multiple and credible" reports that an al Qaeda terror cell may be on its way to the United States or could already be in the country.
Today's report also concludes that "al-Qa'ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI)."
"Given that there was no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded there," says Clarke, "it's hard not to draw the conclusion that going to Iraq has created a further threat to the United States."
_______________________________________
Excerpts from Bill Moyers program Impeachment

Bruce Fein: This is why these are -
Bill Moyers: You're saying you want the judiciary committee to call formal hearings on the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney?

Bruce Fein: Yes. Because there are political crimes that have been perpetrated in combination. It hasn't been one, the other being in isolation. And the hearings have to be not into this is a Republican or Democrat. This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it's John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, "I am the law. I do what I want. No one else's view matters."

John Nichols: The hearings are important. There's no question at that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, "You must act upon this." Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it's time. We need some accountability.

Bill Moyers: But Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree.

John Nichols: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up. It is not enough -
John Nichols: But they do so, by and large, in a cautious way. They say, "Well, the president's done too much." Let's start to use the "i" word. Impeach is a useful word. It is a necessary word. The founders in the Constitution made no mention of corporation or political parties or conventions or primaries or caucuses. But they made six separate references to impeachment. They wanted us to know this word, and they wanted us to use it.

Bill Moyers: You're - does this process have to go all the way to the end? Do Bush and Cheney have to be impeached before it serves the public?

John Nichols: I think that what Bush and Cheney have done makes a very good case that the public and the future would be well served if it did go all the way to the end. But there is absolutely a good that comes of this if the process begins, if we take it seriously. And the founders would have told you that, - that impeachment is a dialogue. It is a discourse. And it is an educational process. If Congress were to get serious about the impeachment discussions, to hold the hearings, to begin that dialogue, they would begin to educate the American people and perhaps themselves about the system of checks and balances, about the powers of the presidency, about, you know, what we can expect and what we should expect of our government. ...........


Bill Moyers: The power of the purse-

Bruce Fein: - the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. It was utilized during the Vietnam War, you may recall, in 1973. Congress said there's no money to go and extend the war into Laos and Cambodia. And even President Nixon said okay. This was a president who at one time said, "If I do it, it's legal." So that it we do find Congress yielding the power to the executive branch. It's the very puzzle that the founding fathers would have been stunned at. They worried most over the legislative branch in, you know, usurping powers of the other branches. And -

Bill Moyers: Well, what you just said indicts the Congress more than you're indicting George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Bruce Fein: In some sense, yes, because the founding fathers expected an executive to try to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch. And you're right. They have basically renounced - walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check. It's not an option. It's an obligation when they take that oath to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I think the reason why this is. They do not have convictions about the importance of the Constitution. It's what in politics you would call the scientific method of discovering political truths and of preventing excesses because you require through the processes of review and vetting one individual's perception to be checked and - counterbalanced by another's. And when you abandon that process, you abandon the ship of state basically and it's going to capsize.