Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
National Intelligence Estimate Declassified, Online!
i.a.cnn.net — This document is the declassified Key Judgments from the larger, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States that was produced in April 2006. The NIE analyzes the nature of the threat that terrorist groups across the world will pose to US lives and interests. (PDF File)
attila- 333 diggs
- digg it
- attila, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This IS the NIE assesment that spy angencies collaborated on. The very same one in which portions were leaked to the media over the weekend. Bear in mind, these are only the declassified portions of the estimate, but are germaine the recent "leakc controversy". Enjoy this, most other sources for this PDF File are inaccessible due to high-load on servers.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I saw Jacki Schechner talking about this on CNN and ran to post it on Digg. :)
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Another alt:
http://dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf - Alcorsu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Apparently there's an even more explosive report floating around too:
http://digg.com/politics/Dems_Call_for_Release_of_Second_Secret_Iraq_Report - Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3"Was London "safer" a year into WWII?"
No, but it WAS safer 4 years after the US entered the war. That was a war against millions of soldiers with top of the line technology at the time bent on world conquest... this war is against thousands with old tech who mostly want to be treated fairly. Very big difference.
We were able to fight the most powerful military in the world in WWII and win in about 4 years. In this fight we can't even maintain relative peace against an armed militia of sorts... and not only are we simply not handling it, we are making the situation worse the longer we fight.
After our first year fighting in WWII we were always doing better than the year before. Constantly gaining ground, moving closer to an eventual end. In this conflict we're moving further from a conclusion and closer to escalation into an all out religious world war.
Don't you dare act like this is even remotely as big a conflict as WWII was. The only way this conflict could get to WWII levels is if we keep letting Bush fight it like he has been. - gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7@Shadar
"Don't you dare act like this is even remotely as big a conflict ..."
You miss my point completely. I'm merely applying some historical perspective "in advance". WWII lasted almost 6 years (Sept '39 - Aug '45). One quarter of the way through it, the outcome was FAR from clear.
Initially, people though the War on Terror (or struggle against Radical Islam if you prefer) would last 20 years. More recently, the BBC (NOT neocons as you affectionately call them) says maybe 50: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1623036.stm
So, we're 5 years in. Why should we expect everything to be going our way???
That's my only point.
I could easily cite other conflicts (Civil War, Cold War, and on and on). It's just an example.
But nevermind a little rational thought folks...just keep digging my comments down. I get a kick out of it. - gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sorry, it was FlaG8r that said neocons wanted the WOT to last 20 years not you shadar...but, I'm sure you still see my point.
- ufia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What a crappy report. Seems like this thing was intended for higher ups who take a little glimpse at it, feel like they know what's going on around the world, then goes back to playing Freecell on their computer. Your government at work, folks.
If I wrote a report like that at my job, I would get fired immediately. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The US has never won a war lasting more than five years.
- unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you, for submitting the source.
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12From the Article: "The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Yes, but you didn't read the next paragraph. A percieved win there will embolden the pan islamic fasists. A loss will do the opposite. Like it or not, Iraq is the schwerpunkt against the jihadists. Unfortunately, I think we are going to lose.
- cragga, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5i hope you lose.
shouldnt be there in the first place. - Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This jihad started long before we went into Iraq.
- tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5While I don't doubt the authenticity of this document, it seems like an awful big pat on the back and I don't think our militaristic action is making the world safer.
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8How is it a pat on the back? It's not ALL bad news, but the gist of it is that the war in Iraq is putting us in greater danger.
- attila, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm not sure I understand the 'pat on the back' statement, as happyfappy said, it's not all bad news, it's an assessment of where we currently stand and projections until the next report is made. I thought it was a sobering read, helping me form my own informed ideas regarding the situations around the world and their implications for the United States. I don't feel the Iraq war has made us safer as a result either.
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Nobody is saying the increased terrorism in Iraq is making us safer. We're what 5 years into 20yr? 50yr? struggle?
Was London "safer" a year into WWII?
And yet, the war had to be fought and won.
At least now we have all the report's conclusions instead of one of them as the "Certain People" had intended. And what was up with that proposed secret session of Congress today? - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"We're what 5 years into 20yr? 50yr? struggle?"
If the Neocons have their way.
It took us less than 4 years after Pearl Harbor to defeat the two greatest military powers the world had known to that point. - vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"If the Neocons have their way.
It took us less than 4 years after Pearl Harbor to defeat the two greatest military powers the world had known to that point."
We knew where they were. It would have been hard for Germany and Japan to hide themselves. With the exception of some of the behind-the-scenes things (spies, submarines, Ultra, etc), it was a very *conventional* war. "There's the enemy -- build war machines and fight!" was the basic (simplistic but apt) plan.
If Al-Qaeda was a country with a capital named Jihad, perhaps things would be a bit more comparable. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How long did it take us to finally realize we lost Vietnam?
And how long after we left did their people finally sort it out for themselves? - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am sure many were screamin, that if we left vietnam all hell will break loose.
I love how not only bush says stay the course but they like to bring up that bin ladin does too.
SO because both our enemies and leaders say stay the course it is a good idea. well unless you are iraqi. - tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's a pat on the back because it shows that the U.S. should be in Iraq (or that Iraq is a legitimate foe in the war on terror.) All of a sudden Bush looks like he's been right all along in invading Iraq.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4This is a great chance to compare the sane and measured language of the actual report to the media hype and frenzy sparked by the anonymous official who had a political grudge.
- attila, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11In the interest of full-disclosure, this is only the 'declassified' portion of the actual report. And the leaked 'quotes' from this past weekend are identical to passages from this released report. There's another site, where an intelligence official quoted even more, that hasn't been declassified, with more damning language. I'd be interested to see what people thing if/when the complete NIE report is declassified. It will probably never happen.
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"There's another site, where an intelligence official quoted even more, that hasn't been declassified, with more damning language"
Oh really? Why don't you link to it? Don't keep all the goodies to yourself. I read spook86's comments: http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-of-what-you-wont-read-in-nyt.html
Is that what you were refering to?
- GreenLantern33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They are on to us.
"We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support."
*****!- styleandprofile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3IT'll be interesting to see how this document ends up being played out politically now that Bush has declassified it. Will it be used as a supporting document to remain in Iraq or to pull out? I don't agree with the war either but this will prove interesting to say the least. I certainly don't think fighting wars makes people "safer." How do you define or measure "safer" anyways? Also how will Bush define success? What is it? When do you achieve it? The Brits were in Iraq for 50 years before the U.S and no "success" was achieved.
- dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years,
political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and
groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless,
attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit."
-Exactly what President Bush has been saying over and over again.- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years"
We could have a string of Iran's instead of just one. Iran==Democratic Muslim Majority State that really really hates the US. They'll be better off for having Democracy, but they're not exactly going to be thanking us for all our help anytime soon... - tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2There of course is no part in there about American not having been there in the first place ... WMDs and bad intel and all that, yanno ...
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@tehbishop
The NIE is not a political document. It is intended to help shape national security policy in the future.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years"
- desc1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4more lies from the jihadi loving MSM. its funny to see you leftist fools s easily led by the leash. when will you all wake up and enter reality!
- OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"It took us less than 4 years after Pearl Harbor to defeat the two greatest military powers the world had known to that point."
Yea, but that was back when we were allowed to fight. Today we can't even look at a captured terrorist crossly without some politician getting his knickers in a bunch. And the press wasn't actively campaigning against us back then either. Or the opposition party. My how times have changed.- Popcan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Very true. If a dictator like Saddam was in power in Europe, and not the Middle East, the situation would be very different today.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Yeah! We can't even torture civilians to death without somebody getting upset! Sheesh!"
Without my network of Stalinesque Secret Torture Prisons, I can't even cross the street safely, not to mention conduct an ill-planned, under-supported military operation.
The only way Rumsfeld's promise of the Iraq occupation lasting less that 6 months could have come true was through superior torture and naked prisoner pyramids. Once you take away the threat of mock-electrocutions and rifle-sodomy, then you need to win the war with just troops and rifles and bombers. I mean, what do you expect, people!
- styleandprofile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Cheers to Shadar. The U.S was also fighting a military and nations not ideas which is what it faces much more directly now. You can't bomb ideas out of people.
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I would suggest to you that one of the reasons the Allies adopted a position of Unconditional Surrender was to enable the erradication of the "ideas" that were coming out of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent Imperial Japan.
The Allies literally bombed Nazism out of Germany. - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What was that war of ideas where the mightiest military on earth was fighting a bunch of radical guerillas with a strong set of ideas...?
Oh yeah, the American revolution.
We showed that friggin empire that their superious numbers and weaponry were no match for our devotion to our principals! You can't come to our home soil and boss us around, no sir!
Oh, wait...
hmmm.... - twinkiboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, and back then they also relocated 110,000 "suspected" non-citizens and put them in internment camps...but what's a few hundred thousand violations of civil liberties compared to "security".
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I would suggest to you that one of the reasons the Allies adopted a position of Unconditional Surrender was to enable the erradication of the "ideas" that were coming out of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent Imperial Japan.
- Rxbrent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support."
Oh *****! There goes the Internet!- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And in WWII they used radio... and telephone...
and in WWI they used the telegraph...
Prior to that, well, it was pretty much guys with notes.
A ban on guys with notes, I say! A clampdown on paper and ink will make us more secure.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And in WWII they used radio... and telephone...
- btljuice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Basic summary. Completely stomp any nation looking remotely strong in the Mid-East, install puppet governments that pass legislation and constitutions to allow foreign companies to rape their resources. Rinse, repeat.
- vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"install puppet governments that pass legislation and constitutions to allow foreign companies to rape their resources. Rinse, repeat."
If Jim Henson were still alive, we'd rule the world!
I guess we'll have to settle for freest nation on Earth. Pity. - Elohir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nah uh! We're easily 6% freer than you are, possibly 7!
- vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"install puppet governments that pass legislation and constitutions to allow foreign companies to rape their resources. Rinse, repeat."
- sabotank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2well....dammit....aww hell, don't feel like getting into it tonight.....can't we all just get along??
- bollox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Soviet Union beat the Nazis. The US joined in at the end. What kind of history do you people get taught?
- styleandprofile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0touche
- Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Read: win in Iraq or face a new generation of terrorists who believe they defeated the U.S. just as Osama bin Laden and his mujahadeen believe they defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is