Jennifer Loven does it again

Jennifer Loven is a lady with a reputation — one that the Power Line team has carefully documented. I’m sure she comes by her biases honestly– her husband, after all, worked for Bill Clinton and advised John Kerry during his run for office. Coming by your biases honestly, though, is a completely different thing from holding yourself out as an objective reporter for an ostensibly unbiased news agency. Of course, the reality is that there is perfect synchronicity when the rabidly anti-Bush Loven works for the equally rabidly anti-American AP.

In any event, Loven’s latest hatchet job is more subtle than her usual pieces of op-ed masquerading as news. This time, she reports on a speech Bush gave today in which he criticized the Democrats’ ability to handle the jihadist war being waged against us.

The article starts off with what actually sounds like news: Bush gave a speech criticizing the Democrats. Loven goes on to the next news point: the Democrats vehemently challenge Bush’s characterization of their ability to handle jihad. She then notes the timing of this rhetorical war: elections are a mere six weeks away. So far, so boring.

Things get interesting when Loven, predictably, drags in NIE stuff:

The war of words continued a nearly weeklong tussle by both parties over the implications of a newly revealed estimate, an analysis of terror trends put together by the nation’s top intelligence analysts in 16 spy agencies.

The document concluded that Iraq has become a “cause celebre” for jihadists worldwide, whom it said have grown in number and geographic reach. The report said the factors, such as the Iraq war, that are fueling the jihadist movement’s growth outweigh its vulnerabilities and that, if the current trend continues, risks to the U.S. interests at home and abroad will grow.

Portions of the five-month-old report were leaked over the weekend, and Bush ordered the key judgments – four of its 30 pages – declassified on Tuesday in hopes that wider availability of most conclusions would quell the criticism.

What was immediately obvious to me, but may not have been so obvious to those less news aware than I, is the fact that Loven restates the early NY Times talking points about the leaked portions of the NIE report, but ignores completely the conclusions that could be drawn from the more substantive material Bush officially released. Indeed, Loven is careful to imply that nothing in the more comprehensive and authorized release actually challenges the NY Times position: “Bush ordered the key judgmments . . . declassified on Tuesday in hopes that wider availability of most conclusions would quell the criticism.” A sentence such as that inevitably leads the reader to believe that these “hopes” were faint and unrealized.

The fact is that the report is neither an indictment nor an accolade. Instead, if one ignores political waffle, it states what it obvious to all: While the global Jihad is spreading, the US is also taking reasonable steps to deal with that spread (and there are further reasonable steps it can take, as well). This is scarcely a surprise to anyone who has been reading newspapers since 1979. The Iranian Revolution was the first salvo in the renewed jihad, and it has been gaining momentum ever since. To engage it in battle in Iraq may have accelerated its growth but, as the preceding 25 years have shown, doing nothing did not prevent its growth.

What I like about the report is the fact that it indicates that fighting Al Qaeda-led jihadism is doing something that our more passive approach never did: it’s damaging Al Qaeda. Thus, the report opens by noting that “United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations.” This conclusion is not altered by the fact that the report also acknowledges that Al Qaeda continues to grow and change (something it was doing before the US took it on in battle, and something that it also does in countries that have desperately been showing their bellies).

Significantly, even if one strongly disagrees with the whole concept of fighting back, rather than immediately conceding defeat (as the Democrats would have had us do), the report is pretty clear on one fact: if the Islamists believe they’re losing in Iraq, they’ll become demoralized and go away. The unstated corollary is that, if we slink away, handing them a victory, nothing will stop them.

You should read the report for yourself. Mostly, it seems to say that Al Qaeda will continue to be a problem, but that there are ways to weaken and defuse it. To me, that’s good practical information. For Jennifer Loven to write what purports to be a news article, while leaving out most of the actual news, is just one more in the list of her disgraceful practices under AP’s aegis.

UPDATEHere’s Jonah Goldberg saying what I was trying to say about the slow increase in Muslim violence (which was a pretty strong increase when you consider that this first phase culminated in 9/11), and the acceleration with the Iraq war:

If you’ve ever stood up to a bully, you know how this works. Confrontation tends to increase the chances of violence in the short term but decreases its likelihood in the long term.

As always, you’ll be giving yourself reading pleasure if you read the rest of Goldberg’s article.


11 Responses

  1. Even terrorists are mortal. The left should take heed of that wisdom.

  2. AP=American Piercing

  3. It’s interesting. I have read 2 conservative critiques of the NIE released information and they do not substantiate this sweeping generalization Ms. Lovett writes. In detail, these examinations find EXACTLY the opposite.
    “The report said the factors, such as the Iraq war, that are fueling the jihadist movement’s growth outweigh its vulnerabilities and that, if the current trend continues, risks to the U.S. interests at home and abroad will grow.”

    Her unsupported conclusion appears to be more of the nature of a party release from the Democratic National Committee, than responsible, professional journalism. I think it’s telling that the zinger lies in between lots of quotes and details, so to mask its disingenuousness.

    Associated Press readers can have on-line access to the facts of the NIE text release (and honest critiques): why the complete misrepresentation?
    I can only see her purpose to be spreading disinformation for the less informed.

  4. What I can’t figure out is what the Democrat/Liberal/Left endgame is. Do these twits really think that if they regain power, then a) the jihadis will simply go away or b)they will be able to rouse Americans up in arms to really, really take the jihadi threat seriously? Or, is it that they really can’t think that far?

  5. With the moral high ground, Danny, they will be invulnerable.

    Some aspects of not being able to see far in a chess game, true. But there’s also the difference between the maximalist and pragmatic approaches to strategy.

  6. Even with the moral high ground securely beneath your feet, you can still be crushed flat by a falling piano or a runaway bulldozer. You may feel just swell about yourself, but you’re a long way from any kind of practical invulnerability.

    Danny asks a pertinent question: what the hell are these people thinking? (If it may be said that “thinking” is indeed some part of their process.)

    I don’t know. I’ve been unable to ascertain what their endgame, or their solution might be. There doesn’t seem to be one. It’s very easy to fulminate about how wrong our present course is, how badly our current crop of leaders is doing, how hopeless it all is, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    So fine. Okay. I’ll grant you all of that, democrats. So we turn off the war, bring the troops home, and… and… then what? When the boys from Outermost Fapistan continue to behave just as they’ve always behaved, because they’ve been saying all along that their ultimate goal is for us to be off the planet – then what?

    People have asked the question. I’ve never heard an answer; not from Harry Reid, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Murtha, or any of them.

    Maybe I’ve just missed it: has ANYBODY heard an actual solution from any of them? Or has it all been just magical thinking?

    There came a point when even Neville Chamberlain recognized that rolling over and playing dead wasn’t going to do it; it was a shock to his system I’m sure, but he eventually caught on to the fact that Hitler wanted England gone. Period. Somewhat more appositely, even the sainted Gandhi eventually came to the conclusion that there was no living with Islam, so he presided over rounding them up and shipping them out – thus we have Pakistan.

    Maybe I missed it, but I am compelled to confess that I have no inkling of what the democrat/liberal plan might be. But I do believe Danny’s question needs an answer.

  7. JJ, a great summation. Danny asks a good question. I suppose our good ‘Doc,’ Doctor Sanity, has some effect on my grasp. She says that the Left is unable to deal with reality. They actually don’t believe in a terrorist threat. How can one reason with such?

    1–I’ve always felt the Left were terrorist in their deepest core. NO, I’m not referring to classical liberalism, whether American or European. (Bookworm has referenced the Euston Manifesto, which conveys well the case of Authentic liberalism.)

    Today’s Left results from the Marxist, nihilist stuff of the anti-war movement grown into a monster who has swallowed the Democrats. Their religion (Marxist, secularist) is totalitarian in nature and terrorist in its means to power.
    Such would have no objections to the terrorist nature of Islam. Kindred spirits.
    Perhaps the President of Iran recognised such by his pandering to Left leaders and the MSM recently.
    Dividing Western opinion has been effective for Islam, as the MSM gives evidence.

    2–D. Sanity seems to think, among other things, that the Left are more than a little insane. The Left must adopt all sorts of ways to cope. They don’t believe in a real world, and rant as prisoners of their own delusions. That’s not a complete answer for me, but she always makes presents powerful argument.
    I do know you can’t debate truth with Leftists. Their ‘talking points’ are better handled with satire, ridicule, and dismissal. Their incessant, irrational rants seem certainly to justify the good Doc’s diagnosis.

  8. Sala has written somewhat about Democrat end goals, JJ. Go read it if you haven’t already, for curiosity’s sake.

    Maybe I’ve just missed it: has ANYBODY heard an actual solution from any of them? Or has it all been just magical thinking?

    I tried finding the link, but couldn’t. Long time ago, can’t even remember which month it was in. I did post some of Sala’s archived links up having to do with the Democrats, which you might find interesting. Suffice it to say, the Democrats seem to think that they can get power, and if the Islamics attack, they can get even more power either by implementing a police powers solution or just blaming the Republicans again.

  9. […] just pick up any AP report that Jennifer Loven writes.  (You can learn a little more about Loven here.) Members of the conservative media are also more generous with presenting the underlying source […]

  10. Is there any way to contact her? I want to give her a piece of my mind.

    Please email me at davewlowe@gm@il.c0m


  11. By far the most concise and up to date information I found on this topic. Sure glad that I navigated to your page by accident. I’ll be subscribing to your feed so that I can get the latest updates. Appreciate all the information here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: