Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You know, I click on that link, and the quote I'm seeing is:

"What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat," Negroponte said in a statement.

"The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive, and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."

In other words, Negropointe is backing up my assessment - the NYT et. al. should not be making any sweeping conclusions.

We may be arguing past each other -- but I understood/understand you to be doubting whether the NIE actually contains the conclusion, as a consensus of the 16 domestic intelligence agencies, that one effect of the War in Iraq has been to increase the terrorist threat against the United States.

So, here is the first paragraph of the article:

"The conclusion of U.S. intelligence analysts that the Iraq war has increased the threat from terrorism is only 'a fraction of judgments' in a newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said yesterday." [and then goes on to say the other stuff you quote]

Negroponte doesn't deny that this was one of the conclusions -- only pointing out that there are many other factors to be considered in evaluating the global picture. That was my point.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, here is a link to the Wapo article quoting Negroponte on this subject. He's probably read the report.

He essentially says -- "Yes, but . . . there are many other conclusions and issues addressed in the NIE as well, so don't just focus on this one."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...86.html?sub=AR

S_A_M

P.S. I'm sure Ty and Wonk are waiting for their apologies.

I gave up waiting for apologies a long time ago.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I gave up waiting for apologies a long time ago.

do you blame the Clintons?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you blame the Clintons?

Speaking of overdue apologies....

Remember when Hillary was on the Today and she unmasked the VRWC's role in promoting the downfall of her husband......

Let's go to the tape:


MATT LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second -- Bill and Hillary aren't involved in this story: If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.

LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?

CLINTON: Well, I think -- if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

It's not? Apology Senator Incitatus?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
Negroponte doesn't deny that this was one of the conclusions -- only pointing out that there are many other factors to be considered in evaluating the global picture. That was my point.

S_A_M

And my point was that ther NYTimes suggested that this was the sole. sweeping conclusion - and that I wanted to withhold judgment until we actually got to read it, or until more folks that actually did read it discuss its contents "on the record".

I'm sure that all of here have become very wary of newspaper accounts relying solely on these mysterious "unnamed sources".

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I gave up waiting for apologies a long time ago.

I'm very sorry that you are a Liberal.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm very sorry that you are a Liberal.

I know.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Apology Senator Incitatus?

Good Lord! Don't you have anything better to do?

S_A_M:eyeroll:

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Good Lord! Don't you have anything better to do?

S_A_M:eyeroll:

More important than trying to save our nation from Madame Co-President Hillary??

[Gattigap]

And we really mean it this time!

Heritage Foundation

• Federal spending in 2006 is set to rise 9 percent, the largest increase since 1990 and enough to earn Congress near failing grades from the Heritage Foundation’s third quarter report card. Most families facing steep new expenses would cut back on additional spending. However, the Senate is preparing to bust fiscal year (FY) 2007 discretionary spending caps by at least $32 billion to:
  
  * Reimburse the Pentagon for the $9 billion raided from its budget earlier this year and given to domestic programs, as well as fund additional defense and border security programs ($26.8 billion in total);
  
  * Fund another massive farm subsidy bailout despite high subsidy levels and a booming farm economy ($4.2 billion); and
  
  * Reimburse NASA for funds that lawmakers had diverted into parochial pork projects ($1.0 billion).
  
  And in addition, lawmakers have promised $2 billion to $3 billion more for the labor, health, and education programs.

To be fair, I'm sure Bush has had to increase federal spending to offset the many fiscally lean years instituted during the Clinton administration. Those fucking Democrats wouldn't know a good project to spend money on if it walked up and bit them.

Gattigap

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
And we really mean it this time!

Heritage Foundation

• Federal spending in 2006 is set to rise 9 percent, the largest increase since 1990 and enough to earn Congress near failing grades from the Heritage Foundation’s third quarter report card. Most families facing steep new expenses would cut back on additional spending. However, the Senate is preparing to bust fiscal year (FY) 2007 discretionary spending caps by at least $32 billion to:
  
  * Reimburse the Pentagon for the $9 billion raided from its budget earlier this year and given to domestic programs, as well as fund additional defense and border security programs ($26.8 billion in total);
  
  * Fund another massive farm subsidy bailout despite high subsidy levels and a booming farm economy ($4.2 billion); and
  
  * Reimburse NASA for funds that lawmakers had diverted into parochial pork projects ($1.0 billion).
  
  And in addition, lawmakers have promised $2 billion to $3 billion more for the labor, health, and education programs.

To be fair, I'm sure Bush has had to increase federal spending to offset the many fiscally lean years instituted during the Clinton administration. Those fucking Democrats wouldn't know a good project to spend money on if it walked up and bit them.

Gattigap

They [begrudgingly] passed the earmark transparancy bill. A long overdue step in the right direction.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And we really mean it this time!

It's an absolute embarassment. They're lucky that stupid americans are the ones voting in U.S. elections.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They [begrudgingly] passed the earmark transparancy bill. A long overdue step in the right direction.

Effective through Jan. 2, 2007!

(how does it increase transparency? If it's in the guy's district, isn't it pretty obvious?)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Effective through Jan. 2, 2007!

(how does it increase transparency? If it's in the guy's district, isn't it pretty obvious?)

It expires Jan 2? WTF? Are they even in session between now and then, other than next week?

Did House and Senate pass?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It expires Jan 2? WTF? Are they even in session between now and then, other than next week?

Did House and Senate pass?

It's a House rule. It could be renewed next session . . .

Expect them to be in session more if the Dems win in Nov.