In the past twenty-four hours, a series of events has taken place that underscores how important it is to separate the administrations political agenda - one they are entitled to have - and the reality on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, so that American voters can make educated decisions next year about who they want next to lead this country.
Department of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff said on Wednesday, referring to public statements by Ayman al-Zawahiri and apparently little else, "All of these things have given me a gut feeling that we are in a period of vulnerability." Chertoff, a former applet court judge and prosecutor, was rebuked almost immediately by the White House, agreeing that there was no specific intelligence to indicate an imminent attack, or even one in the planning stages that they were aware of, but denying the "gut feeling" remark.
Yesterday, and perhaps in response to the denial by the White House, an anonymous source at the Pentagon leaked part of a new classified National Intelligence Estimate to the press that would seem to bolster Chertoff's apprehension, but directly conflicts with the administrations assertion that Al Qaeda had been severely weakened by the war in Afghanistan - a claim repeated as recently as last year.
The NIE is a consensus report from 16 different agencies within the federal government, including but not limited to the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, and intelligence offices from each branch of the U.S. military.
It was with great surprise that Chertoff not only backed down on his previous statements today, but also attacked the NIE as being wrong, saying on Good Morning America that "I wouldn't put it at that level," apparently now arguing that he knows something that America's intelligence agencies do not. If the NIE is accurate, then Chertoff would seem to be completely out of the loop either within his professional responsibilities as DHS Chief today, or outside the President's political agenda on Wednesday.
If the NIE is inaccurate, then our intelligence agencies are - collectively - unable to grasp the state of terrorism in the Middle East, a far more frightening prospect than the former situation.
Either way, someone in this equation isn't doing their job, and regardless of who it is, a critical subsection of our intelligence and defense structure is clearly falling apart right before our eyes.
Without access to the NIE itself, no one outside the press generally and the President in depth can say for certain which way the report wades on the question of Al Qaeda's strength, but that doesn't mean the public is without the means to make a reasoned guess as to which "truth" accurately represents the situation on the ground.
The President and the GOP have claimed since the war in Iraq began that Republicans were uniquely suited to protecting America during a time of war, based entirely on the premise that the President severely crippled Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Given that the United States hasn't engaged the group itself in any other country besides initial skirmishes in the Pakistan mountains - territory that is now off-limits due to agreements between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and the Taliban that amounts to a ceasefire - and the bulk of our ground forces currently engaged in Iraq, it's hard to believe that our actions on our part have kept Al Qeada on a leash over the years.
Other arguments about Democrats simply being weak on national security issues by default are nothing more than political rhetoric that has never been substantiated by evidence of any kind.
Most experts agree that while there were cursory relationships between Saddam Husein's government and Al Qaeda operatives before the war, Husein deeply distrusted bin Laden and his motives, with a conclusion that Al Qaeda had no substantive presence in Iraq until the United States invaded, and sectarian violence between religious sects began consuming the country a civil war.
For its part, Al Qaeda has gleefully admitted how helpful the Iraq invasion has been in the recruitment of new terrorists to fight against the West in general, not just the United States.
While a new group has risen in Iraq that calls itself Al Qeada in Iraq, they share little more than the groups namesake, consisting almost entirely of Iraqi's fighting under foreign leadership as pawns for war against the United States presence there.
That group did not exist before the invasion, and if the NIE is to be believed, then Al Qaeda has actually grown in size and capability under the Bush administration, undermining the GOP's argument that they are the "go to guys" on terrorism.
Given these considerations, it's difficult to believe that 16 U.S. intelligence agencies are collectively exaggerating the situation, and that the administration has the situation entirely under its control.
New questions have been raised as to Chertoff's ability to run DHS, given his recent lapses with the press and his recent attack on the NIE, along with his mismanagement of the Katrina disaster. Few people stop to consider that Michael Brown was fired just a few weeks after the disaster, yet much of New Orleans remains completely devastated years later. Chertoff assumed control of FEMA immediately after Brown left the embattled agency, and is equally if not more responsible for their failures as Brown was.
While pundits in the press argue over the NIE and mock Chertoff for his inappropriate comments about his "gut feeling", one thing has become exceedingly clear: If Al Qaeda has become stronger now than it was before the war in Afghanistan, the only success the Bush administration can lay claim to just evaporated into thin air.
But more troubling is that America is even less safe today than it has been in the last six years, and if anything, this administration has only made matters worse.