What is Digg?78 Comments
- sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51More of the same from the GOP...
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28It just keeps getting grimer and grimer. ; )
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Of course they won't release it before the midterms-they don't want to politicize things! ;)
- Bostonsox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19hey its ***** coming from politicians, what else is new.
- garethevans, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17My thinking is that he just reads it regularly and posts whatever catches his eye.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I wonder what the GOP apologists have to say about this. Surely, they'll come up with some excuse, no-doubtedly one that bashes Clinton in the process...
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Why? Because if the public knew the truth before the election, they might not vote for the incumbent party. That’s just speculation, but they really give no evidence to any other theories, so it's hard not to assume the worst.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Seriously? The elections are usually the reason they delay something until after the elections.
- gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17if something is going to make you and your administration look bad, surpress it or classify it!
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Sweet, the report will be ready just in time for the midterm elect- .. oh. nevermind.
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16SUR-*****-PRISE
- mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14therefore, it's acceptable?
- Hoovooloo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Ya know, most people don't care if someone posts their own blog, as long as it is a well-written, interesting piece. Blog spam is when you link to a blog post of your own that lacks meaningful content, just to get it exposure.
- HexInfinity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11In November '06, conservatives are royally screwed.
- Anth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12There must be some bad ***** in there if they want to hold it until after elections.
Surely this... oh never mind... - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7One more reason to GET OUT AND VOTE.
- sshack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11because people keep believing what they have to say.
- pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@ jarland
What's stopping them? When someone else goes to submit a story does it turn them away? No, it doesn't. - stretch611, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I wish you are right about the elections, but you must have missed all the stories about Diebold and the security of their voting machines.
- Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Let's hope someone's brave enough to leak it.
- geekzapoppin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm continually amazed at how the Bush administration wants to pry into every citizen's private business but blatantly refuses to release imformation that is pertinent to everyone's lives. To use the Right's own talking point, if he has nothing to hide, then why be afraid for everyone to know what the situation is?
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Okay, for anyone disliking ThinkProgress.org, here is the direct link to the White House release on this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926-7.html
(It says near the bottom they may release a revised, updated, more open version of the NIE around January 2007, and, I quote, "The timing has got nothing to do with the election.," according to Fran Townsend, who conducted this press briefing.)
As I was reading this, something stood out to me..
========
"Now in the next section -- this is the Iraq section in the key judgments, where the key judgments note, "Perceived jihadist success would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." The key judgments goes on to say that "the Iraq conflict has become a cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." It then says, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.""
======== (Fran Townsend, Homeland Security Advisor)
Remember Shock-n-Awe, when we first went into Iraq with our bombs and missiles? Remember Hussein's propaganda guy (sorry, don't remember his name or position) who went around on television saying, "We are killing the Americans! We still have control of the airport! We are fighting them and winning this battle!" Jeez, I'm giggling just thinking back on it... that guy was funny! :)
Anyway, to play devil's advocate for a moment, I'm wondering if this is partly a battle of media propaganda, to keep going on television and say, "We're winning, we're killing thousands of jihadists, we're trying to help the average Iraqi by eliminating the extremists," etc. etc. You just know that the average middle-eastern muslim (with t.v. and electricity) are seeing their own propaganda, and the internet is a swift way to get info anywhere (except for N.Korea and a few other countries), so maybe part of this nonsense is to make those considering the life of a jihadist feel at minimum undecided.
I'll repeat: I don't think we should have ever invaded Iraq, I think Bush should be impeached for treason (and being an all-around idiot)... but trying to have rational discourse otherwise, does this make sense to anyone?
A probability, or maybe even a possibility? - ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7(patiently awaits the neo-con "Marked as Inaccurate" onslaught)
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10mrfoos:
Would you like me to cite the other 20 reports from agencies around the world showing that the Iraq war has RAISED the level of terrorism in the world? - NoUse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Actually, in this case they are holding on to the ***** until after the elections.
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hope they don't release the WHOLE thing... summaries of every applicable point would be fine with me, if done by an "independent entity" (for example, someone like Richard Clarke, who had no party loyalty in his assessments).
There are definitely details that should not be released to the public. I don't want my son-in-law or friends serving in the military to be endangered in any way by certain details. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think it's beyond speculation to assume that the party in complete control of our government would withhold vital voting-decision affecting information from us until after elections. But, hey, maybe that's just me.
- kristov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Withholding information from America for no other reason than to further their own political agenda? No way!
- Str8Dog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I have good money that it already has been leaked and will be released just in time for maximum effect....
- bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@jarland:
They do have the opportunity — do you need a refresher on how digg works?
This isn't blog spam, as much as you may dislike it. Please learn what blog spam is before complaining about it. - Antitorgo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What complete and utter BS. How do they know that an unfinished and unreleased intelligence report depicts a bleak picture of what is going on in Iraq? Yet another half-baked leak?
Until the thing is released to the public and we can read the whole thing then the rest is pure speculation. Just like the recently released NIE that proved to be fairly balanced with good/bad news. - salivalnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, nixfu, yes they do. It's known as freedom of speech and freedom of the press - a freedom any country who solidly believes in democracy will defend to the death. Freedom of the press is essential for democracy, period.
If you don't like newspapers publishing stories that are particularly damaging to a political group, all you need to do is move to China. After all, no news is good news, right?
Who were the traitors in Watergate? The whistle blowers, or Nixon and his goons?
You have to decide whether you want truth and knowlege or ignorance and fear. GWB is doing no better job of protecting your country than the presidents who have gone before him. Seems to me that the Republicans conveniently forget who was in office at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and who has been consistently eroding their freedoms since.
Grow up and get a clue. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4nixfu --
Why do you have to come on here and be all hateful? There's no call for that. You must be an extremist... most of your posts I've seen have been hateful and unfruitful.
Usually I'll just digg a comment like yours down so I don't have to see it again, but maybe this time I feel like I should respond because it seems to me that you're not typically a hateful person, that you could have some intelligent, thoughtful insights to add to the discussion.
I might be wrong, but I hope I'm not. I'd rather see good discussion than drive-by postings (from any extreme). - Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Until it evolves into Muk!
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You said, "lets examine who is behaving this way" and listed 2. Those two started the ball rolling, but the politicians (all of the ones ranting) and the media are sensationalizing it and posturing themselves with it. It's just a bunch of gobbledygook. It's not as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be.
The REAL story is not about the NIE report; it's about who looks the most concerned about it and about who can make the opposing party/cult look the worst. There is nothing damning nor exculpating in that report with respect to Iraq. It's just a bunch of professional opinions about trends. It's a bad excuse to get worked up over.
You know, while I'm commenting all over the place here, I didn't digg the story, nor do I plan to. It's too much hype over nothing. - heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Dirty tricks.
- theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And of course we all know it was the Republicans that pushed for electronic voting machines...oh wait!
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, maybe they're right... maybe it does take months and months to write up and prepare the info for the press and for the public. Maybe it takes months and months to blacken out all the "sensitive details" on 30 pages.
Who knows for sure?
(um, sarcasm) - HaltingPoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jarland, as a blogger who frequently submits articles from his own blog I'd like to add my .02.
Digg is a system with stories submitted by the users for the users. If someone writes a blog story that is interesting and they submit it, it will either get dugg up or not. And unless there is no actual story there, it SHOULD NOT BE MARKED AS SPAM if it contains an actual story.
In your imaginary world only submissions from non-blogs would be accepted it seems. The truth of the situation is that in this system there are MILLIONS of blogs, with tons of new and interesting stories, and unfortunately the vast majority get little to no traffic, and thus have little to no chance of being dugg by a "third party" if you will. That is why I feel it is acceptable for me to submit my own stories, because otherwise there's a low chance of people getting the opportunity to read them since I'm not a "destination" site on the net. If people don't like it, they can either not digg it or mark it as lame, but it sure as hell isn't spam. Spam is when I submit a page to a porn site, or some obvious spam site that lacks any actual content on it. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry, had a phone call and couldn't edit my post...
I feel pretty sure that, despite what Frannie says, the timing of the release of further information has a LOT to do with the elections. Maybe not 100%, but it seems to me they want to share as little as possible at this point in time.
However, the fact that they will not release this stuff before elections may backfire on them, since withholding may appear to a lot of voters as "keeping secrets from the public." - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jarland --
Your last response was well-formed and appreciated (by me) for not getting hateful and defensive.
Thank you. :) - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jason --
When you say "libs," I'm really not sure who you're talking to or about. I think I have a vague idea of what you mean, but saying it that way makes no sense to me.
Anyway, with regard to the report and what it really means, I think the NIE report is being used as a tool for partisan ranting and blowing out a bunch of hot air. It's like waving a computer manual in the air and yelling "Macs are better!" and "No, PCs are better!"
I'm sure there are political reasons for releasing bits and pieces of the report, and for waiting until January (after the elections) to release a fuller version, but what it really is is an excuse to polarize and position. The report contains estimates from 16 agencies about possible trends over the next 3-5 years, about which things are more likely or less likely to happen. Some estimates are conflicting, for obvious reasons, since the agencies are "guesstimating" about the future. "If x, then y; if a, then b, but maybe c," and so on.
This is just a smokescreen for the politicians, all of whom are trying to look knowledgeable and the most concerned. Please don't be fooled by it; just look at these political and media blowhards for what they really are.
Here's a good resource for SOME of what I've learned: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/lowenthal/index.html - pyman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If the truth will set you free these guys will be enslaved foever.
- steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2nixfu- You are for suppressing the truth?
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm pretty sure I agree with you. I think your main point is, "It's the individual -- not whether they're Republican or Democrat."
Is that right? Because I agree with that sentiment, at least for myself personally. I respect people who choose to vote with their party as long as they carefully scrutinize the individual, and make sure the individual's beliefs match up with their own, which matches up with their party's ideology.
For myself, I don't vote based on party affiliation. So I agree with you there. - davbmn68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Isn't this the same NIE that stated that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?? So why all of a sudden is such credence given to this report. Did seems that we want to pick and choose who and what we believe based on what fits our political viewpoint.
- pyrates, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8That makes sense since the parts of it that were released makes them look bad. If they released the whole thing now, it will make them look worse.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq??
I thought that was Clinton, and Albright, and Kennedy, and Kerry, and ...... - scottelloco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most of us know that the ability of the Federal Government to classify public information is widely abused and implemented in situations that have nothing to do with national security, but it's hard to believe that abuse is now being advertised by the Government.
It's almost like they're saying "Yeah, we classify documents for political purposes. What are you gonna do about it? Yeah, nothing, that's what we thought."
This should definitely be an election year issue. - allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1davbmn68 --
No, it's not necessarily the same NIE, since there are many different agencies within it. It's also a different report (for those who aren't aware). This is a newer NIE report, submitted in April of this year, that gives professional opinions of trends for (I believe) global terrorism for the next 3-5 years. This report didn't appear to discuss the issue of WMDs. That has been on previous reports through the last administration (Clinton).
The upper levels get NIE reports when they are requested by the president or certain members of congress, and can take up to a year to compile, depending on how comprehensive they are and how many agencies are contributing to the report. -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is