Clarity

In his press briefing Wednesday, Tony Snow presented a painstaking explication of the subtle meanings in the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate that was just released. His thoughtful, articulate presentation really helped build trust in our government's policies.

Q Tony, let me refocus for a second here, because when this story broke, it seemed to me that the question here was whether or not the NIE, at least according to the part that was leaked, suggested that the war in Iraq, as a part of the general war on terror, was creating more terrorists, not fewer. And it seemed as though the administration's first response had to do with how the information came out, or that it was a small part. Is there -- do you have an issue with that statement?

MR. SNOW: Yes, as a matter of fact, I called you and took issue with it because there's a difference between causation and something that's simply -- two phenomena that happen to go side-by-side.

I think the word he was looking for was 'coincidence'? Did he really not remember, or did he suddenly realize that actually saying out loud that it was a coincidence would make people laugh?

Q So it's a misreading of the report?

MR. SNOW: The report does not say that Iraq is -- it says that Iraq jihad is a contributing factor to trying to recruit people to jihad. It doesn't say that Iraq has made terrorism worse. And that is the shorthand that was employed in a number of cases.

Q I'm sorry -- spell out the difference for me?

MR. SNOW: Real simple, number one --

Q -- read it.

MR. SNOW: Yes, here it is. No, I'd be happy to read the sentence, I'll do it for everybody, because there are two parts to it -- and only the first half was leaked.

"The Iraq conflict has become a cause célèbre for jihadists breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," correct? "Supporters." That's right. People say they -- this is what we're talking about, we're talking about supporters of a global jihadist movement. What it doesn't say is we now have tens of thousands more people armed and ready to hit the United States. It doesn't say that. It says that they're "creating an atmosphere where people are identifying themselves as jihadists."

Now, here's the second part: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

The critical judgment here is Iraq has become for them the battleground. If they lose, they lose their bragging rights. They lose their ability to recruit, and that is why at this point -- the President has made the point over and over. He has not tried to say there are fewer. He has not tried to say that they haven't been winning propaganda victories. What he has said is we've got a different kind of enemy, and we have kept America safe, and we will continue to do it.

Q But it seems to me that what is being suggested here --and maybe we're -- the question is, how do we define "jihad," and is it the same thing? Is their "jihad" our "war in Iraq"? And maybe we're just having a problem with terms. But it seems to me that what is being suggested here is that what is going on in Iraq, that conflict is creating more jihadists, terrorists -- I'm not sure what term you want to use here.

MR. SNOW: You know what's being used? It's -- what it's doing is, it's trying -- and let me go see if I can find the bin Laden quote here. What bin Laden tries to do is to use events as a way of stirring up hatred so that he can get people who will identify -- who will support him. That does not mean -- and I want to make -- because I don't know -- you try to make the distinction. People who say, yes, I support bin Laden is a lot different than people who say, I'm strapping on the vest and going to kill Americans. That's a difference.

And so you've got a jihadist movement where there has been propaganda --

Q But it does say that --

Q That's exactly what this is suggesting --

Q Jihadists aren't on the sidelines. They're not just --

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- no, I --

Q They're not spectators.

MR. SNOW: They're also not people -- they are not people -- well, a lot of them are. But the other --

Q By definition, they're not spectators.

MR. SNOW: No, there's no definition in here.

Q The word, "jihadist."

MR. SNOW: A jihadist is somebody who says --

Q That implies action.

MR. SNOW: Well, but what's interesting is --

Q Finish that sentence, "jihadist is somebody who says," what?

MR. SNOW: A jihadist is somebody who says that they believe -- that they believe that these kind of actions, that terror, in fact, will provide a road to glory. So they believe it. They buy the ideology.

Q So you're suggesting we've created more people who dislike us, but not more people who want to harm us.

MR. SNOW: Well, they may even want to harm us. The question is operationally, do they have the capability, and are they going to move forward to do so?

So, it's suddenly important to make a distinction between the guys who strap on the vests and the guys who just believe in jihad and support the vest-wearers? Because, Tony would have us believe, the NIE isn't actually talking about a worldwide spread and growth in the number of people willing to don suicide vests, 'just' a worldwide spread and growth in the number of people who believe in what those guys are doing.

Because that's so much better. Maybe Iraq is just a 'mitigated disaster'.

Apparently, when the NIE talks about jihadis, some large proportion of those it's talking about are merely supporters of the ideology. What a relief.

I'm still digesting Tony's point here, but I get the feeling they're a little like football fans. They're not actually going to score any touchdowns themselves, they'll just be there in the stands, wearing the team jersey and cheering. Only their jerseys don't explode, I guess. Don't ask me how that "twelfth man" bit fits in; as I say, I'm still digesting this.

I guess there are also a few lawyers out there who are pretty happy to hear Tony's news, though. Seeing as how we've been detaining people just for supporting terrorists, or for contributing to charities that happen to give money to Palestinians, or for wiring money to relatives in the Mideast, they'll probably be happy to know we're not really worrying about those people.

Tony wants us not to worry about that part of that population who believe "that terror, in fact, will provide a road to glory" but for some reason don't do anything. Tony seems to think that there is a significant number of those, because he wants us to make that distinction. He seems to be suggesting that the growth the NIE is talking about is in this benign group.

I have to say, it's a bit confusing. As Tony was fighting to make this distinction clear, the administration was working to pass legislation that would blur it. The bill passed by the House would allow the government to do quite awful things to such people, while denying them any basic right to have their detention reviewed by anyone.

And for years now, we've been detaining people just for taking photographs in the wrong place, or being on the wrong bus at the wrong time, or for being accidentally on the RCMP's sh*tlist, when they had no jihadist ideology at all.

So if Tony would like us to think that it's not such a big problem that the NIE says we now have more "supporters" of jihadist ideology, well, he might want to check on that and get back to us.